rule book - wordpress.com · 2016. 10. 24. · and brown lines on the map. brown lines represent...

32
Twilight Struggle —2nd Edition— © 2007 GMT Games, LLC GMT Games, LLC P.O. Box 308, Hanford, CA 93232-308 www.GMTGames.com 0510 RULE BOOK by Jason Matthews & Ananda Gupta . Introduction........................................................... 2 2. Components .......................................................... 2 3. Game Setup........................................................... 3 4. Game Sequence .................................................... 3 5. Card Play .............................................................. 4 6. Operations ............................................................. 6 7. Events ................................................................... 8 8. DEFCON Status and Military Operations ............ 8 9. China ..................................................................... 9 T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S 0. Scoring and Victory .............................................. 0 . Tournament Play ................................................... 2. The Chinese Civil War Variant ............................. A Late War Scenario .................................................... 2 Game Credits ............................................................... 3 Designer Optional Rules ............................................. 3 Extended Example of Play ........................................... 4 Card Histories .............................................................. 2 Designer’s Notes .......................................................... 3 Deluxe Edition

Upload: others

Post on 23-Aug-2020

2 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: RULE BOOK - WordPress.com · 2016. 10. 24. · and brown lines on the map. Brown lines represent connections within a region. Red dashed lines represent connections between countries

Twilight Struggle —2nd Edition— �

© 2007 GMT Games, LLC

GMT Games, LLC • P.O. Box �308, Hanford, CA 93232-�308www.GMTGames.com 0510

RULE BOOKby Jason Matthews & Ananda Gupta

�. Introduction ........................................................... 22. Components .......................................................... 23. Game Setup ........................................................... 34. Game Sequence .................................................... 35. Card Play .............................................................. 46. Operations ............................................................. 67. Events ................................................................... 88. DEFCON Status and Military Operations ............ 89. China ..................................................................... 9

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

�0. Scoring and Victory .............................................. �0��. Tournament Play ................................................... ���2. The Chinese Civil War Variant ............................. ��A Late War Scenario .................................................... �2Game Credits ............................................................... �3Designer Optional Rules ............................................. �3Extended Example of Play ........................................... �4Card Histories .............................................................. 2�Designer’s Notes .......................................................... 3�

Deluxe Edition

Page 2: RULE BOOK - WordPress.com · 2016. 10. 24. · and brown lines on the map. Brown lines represent connections within a region. Red dashed lines represent connections between countries

Twilight Struggle —2nd Edition—2

© 2007 GMT Games, LLC

1.0 INTRODUCTION“Now the trumpet summons us again — not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need, not as a call to battle, though embattled we are — but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle...”—John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Speech, January 1961

In �945, unlikely allies slew the Nazi beast, while humanity’s most devastating weapons forced the proud Japanese Empire to its knees in a storm of fire. Where once there stood many great powers, now stood only two. The world had scant time to sigh relief before a new conflict threatened. Unlike the titanic conflicts of the preceding decades, this conflict would be waged primarily not by soldiers and tanks, but by spies and politicians, scientists and intellectuals, artists and traitors.

Twilight Struggle is a two-player game simulating the forty-five-year dance of intrigue, prestige, and occasional flares of warfare between the Soviet Union and the United States. The entire world is the stage on which these two titans fight to make the world safe for their own ideologies and ways of life. The game begins amidst the ruins of Europe as the two new ‘superpowers’ struggle over the wreckage of the Second World War, and ends in �989, when only the United States remained standing.

Twilight Struggle inherits its fundamental systems from the card-driven classics We the People and Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage. It is a quick-playing, low-complexity game in that tradition. Event cards cover a vast array of historical happenings, from the Arab-Israeli conflicts of 1948 and 1967, to Vietnam and the U.S. peace movement, to the Cuban Missile Crisis and other such incidents that brought the world to the brink of nuclear annihilation. Subsystems capture the prestige-laden Space Race as well as nuclear tensions, with the possibility of nuclear war ending the game.

These rules are organized into numbered sections, with some sections further subdivided into subsections (for example, 2.� and 2.2). In a number of places in the rules, you will see refer-ences made to rules sections and subsections that are related to the one you are reading.

Additionally, terms that have specialized meaning within these rules, such as ‘Influence’ or ‘Battleground’, are consistently capi-talized to allude to their specialized context within the rules.

2.0 COMPONENTSA complete game of Twilight Struggle includes the following:• One 22” by 34” Map Board• Two sheets of markers• One Rules Booklet• Two Player Aid Cards• ��0 Cards • Two 6-sided dice

2.1 THE GAME MAP“From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the continent.”—Winston Churchill

2.1.1 The map is divided into six Regions: Europe, Asia, Central America, South America, Africa, and the Middle East. A region is a group of geopolitically connected nations, normally in close geographic proximity. Europe is divided into two sub-regions, Eastern Europe and Western Europe. Two historically neutral countries (Austria and Finland) are categorized as being in both Eastern and Western Europe. Asia also contains a sub-region, Southeast Asia. The country spaces that comprise a region share a map color. Sub-regions have shades of the same color.

DESIGN NOTE: Although not exactly geographically correct, the Middle East includes Libya and Egypt for political purposes, while Canada and Turkey are included in the Europe Region.

2.1.2 Any event, rule, action, or card that refers to ‘Europe’ or ‘Asia’ includes the associated sub-regions.

2.1.3 Each space on the map represents a country or bloc of countries (hereafter simply called a country). Each country has a Stability Number representing the country’s overall stability, independence and power.

2.1.4 Battleground States. While most states have their names on white, Battleground countries operate the same way as normal spaces but have special rules for scoring (see �0.�) and coup attempts (6.3). Their country name is highlighted in purple for easy recognition.

Battleground State

Stability Number

Non-Battleground State

Page 3: RULE BOOK - WordPress.com · 2016. 10. 24. · and brown lines on the map. Brown lines represent connections within a region. Red dashed lines represent connections between countries

Twilight Struggle —2nd Edition— 3

© 2007 GMT Games, LLC

2.2.4 Many cards have an asterisk following their Event title. When these cards are played as Events, they are removed per-manently from the game.

2.2.5 Cards that have their Event title underlined are displayed face-up on the side of the game board until they are cancelled (or the game ends).

PLAY NOTE: Player’s may also indicate the play of underlined events with the numbered card reminder markers. They may be placed on map in the Events in Effect Box.

2.2.6 Cards that are discarded (not permanently removed from the game) are placed in a face up pile adjacent to the draw pile.

2.3 MARKERSThe game includes various markers to assist play:

2.1.5 There are two spaces on the map representing the geo-graphic locations of the United States and the Soviet Union. They are out of play for Influence Markers, but are considered “adjacent controlled countries” for the purposes of events, and realignments (6.2.2).

2.1.6 Countries are connected to one another via the black, red and brown lines on the map. Brown lines represent connections within a region. Red dashed lines represent connections between countries in different regions. The black lines indicate connec-tions between countries and superpowers. A country is considered adjacent to all other countries to which it is connected.

DESIGN NOTE: Being adjacent is not entirely a reflection of geography. Several countries that share physical boundaries do not have connections in the game. This is not a map error but is part of the mechanics of the game and the political situation of the times.

2.1.7 Controlling Countries: Each country on the map is con-sidered Controlled by one of the players, or it is uncontrolled. A country is considered Controlled by a player if:• The player has Influence points in the country greater than or

equal to the country’s Stability Number, and• The player’s Influence in the country exceeds his/her op-

ponent’s Influence in that country by at least the country’s Stability Number.

EXAMPLE: To Control Israel (Stability Number 4), a player must have at least 4 Influence points in Israel, and must have at least 4 more Influence points in Israel than his/her opponent has.

2.2 CARDS2.2.1 There are ��0 cards used in the game. Each card contains an Operations Point value, an Event Title and an Event Descrip-tion. Some cards are labeled SCORING, which must be played sometime during the turn they are drawn.

2.2.2 Each card has a symbol to indicate which superpower is associated with its Event, as follows:• Cards with a Red star only are associated with the USSR• Cards with a White star only are associated with the US• Cards with a split Red/White star are not associated with either

side.

(See 5.2 for the effect of playing cards whose Events are associ-ated with your opponent’s superpower.)

2.2.3 Cards may be played in one of two ways, as Events or Operations.

US SpaceRace

USControl

USInfluence

USSRControl

USSRInfluence

US SpaceRace—card

played

USSR SpaceRace

USSR SpaceRace—card

played

TurnMarker

VPMarker

DEFCONRestrictionsReminder

CardReminder

CardReminder

Back

DefconStatus

ActionRound

US MilitaryOP marker

USSR MilitaryOP marker

Event

Early, Mid or Late War indicator

Card I.D. Number

Operations Point value

Asterisk = Remove From Play if event is used

Sample Card

Page 4: RULE BOOK - WordPress.com · 2016. 10. 24. · and brown lines on the map. Brown lines represent connections within a region. Red dashed lines represent connections between countries

Twilight Struggle —2nd Edition—4

© 2007 GMT Games, LLC

3.0 GAME SETUP3.1 Shuffle the Early War cards and deal each player 8 cards. In addition, place ‘The China Card’ face up in front of the USSR player. The players are allowed to examine their cards prior to deploying their initial Influence markers.

3.2 The USSR player sets up first. The USSR places a total of 15 Influence markers in the following locations: � in Syria, � in Iraq, 3 in North Korea, 3 in East Germany, � in Finland, and 6 anywhere in Eastern Europe.

3.3 The US player sets up second, placing a total of 25 Influence markers in the following locations: 2 in Canada, � in Iran, � in Israel, � in Japan, 4 in Australia, � in the Philippines, � in South Korea, � in Panama, � in South Africa, 5 in the United Kingdom, and 7 anywhere in Western Europe.

3.4 Place the US and USSR Space Race markers to the left of the Space Race track. Each player places his Military OP marker on the zero space of their respective Military Operations Track. Place the Turn marker on the first space of the Turn Record Track. Place the Defcon marker on the 5 space of the DEFCON Track. Finally, place the VP marker on the Victory Points Track on the zero space.

4.0 GAME SEQUENCE4.1 Twilight Struggle has ten turns. Each turn represents between three and five years, and will involve six or seven normal card plays by each player. At the beginning of the game, each player receives eight cards from the Early War deck. At the beginning of turn 4, the Mid War deck is shuffled into the draw pile and the players’ hand size increases to nine. At the beginning of turn 8, the Late War deck is shuffled into the draw pile.

4.2 The Phasing Player is the player whose Action Round is currently being played.

4.3 When there are no cards remaining in the draw deck, reshuffle all discards to form a new draw deck. Note that cards played as Events with an asterisk (*) are removed from the game when they are played, and are not shuffled into the new draw deck.

4.3.1 Deal all cards remaining in the draw deck before reshuf-fling, except in turns 4 and 8 (see 4.4.).

4.4 When moving from the Early War deck to Mid War, or from Mid War to Late War, do not add in the discards to the deck—in-stead add the Mid War or Late War cards (as appropriate) to the existing deck and reshuffle. The ignored discards remain in the discard pile for now, but will be reshuffled into the deck in the next reshuffle.

4.5 A turn in Twilight Struggle has the following structure: A. Improve DEFCON Status B. Deal Cards C. Headline Phase D. Action Rounds E. Check Military Operations Status

F. Reveal Held Card (Tournament only) G. Flip ‘The China Card’ H. Advance Turn Marker I. Final Scoring (after Turn �0 only)

A. Improve DEFCON Status: If the DEFCON level is lower than 5, add one to the DEFCON status (towards Peace).

B. Deal Cards: Each player receives enough cards to bring their total hand size to 8 on turns �-3. On turns 4-�0, players should receive enough cards to bring their total hand size to 9. ‘The China Card’ is never included in this total.

C. Headline Phase: Each player secretly selects a card from their hand. Once both players have made their choice, they reveal their cards to each other simultaneously. These cards are called ‘Headline cards’ and their Events take place in this phase (and if the event title has an asterisk, are removed from the game normally). To determine which Event takes place first, look at the Operations value on each card; that is its Headline Value. The card with the higher Headline Value takes effect first. In the event of a tie, the Headline Event played by the US player goes into effect first. • Scoring cards may be played during the Headline Phase. How-

ever, they are considered to have a Headline Value of zero (0) and always take effect second. If both players select a scoring card as their Headline Cards, the US player’s scoring card takes effect first.

• Players must create a Headline event, regardless of whether the event helps them or their opponent.

NOTE: If playing an opponent’s event during the Headline phase, your opponent implements the event text as if they had played the card themselves. However, the player of the headline card would be considered the phasing player for purposes of the DEFCON status (see 8.1.3).• ‘The China Card’ may not be played during the Headline

Phase.• Unless the headline event specifically refers to availability of

operations points, neither player receives operations points from cards played during the headline phase.

D. Action Rounds: There are six Action Rounds in turns � to 3 and seven action rounds turns 4 to �0. Players alternate play-ing cards, one per Action Round, for a total of six cards during turns � to 3, and seven cards during turns 4 to �0. The USSR player always takes his or her Action Round first, followed by the US player. All actions required by each card must be resolved before the next player starts his or her Action Round by playing a card. The player taking his or her Action Round is called the ‘Phasing Player’.• Ordinarily, a player will have a card left over after the comple-

tion of all Action Rounds. This card is considered ‘held’, and may be played in subsequent rounds. Scoring cards may never be held.

• If a player has insufficient cards to take the requisite number of actions for the turn, that player must sit out of the remain-

Page 5: RULE BOOK - WordPress.com · 2016. 10. 24. · and brown lines on the map. Brown lines represent connections within a region. Red dashed lines represent connections between countries

Twilight Struggle —2nd Edition— 5

© 2007 GMT Games, LLC

ing Action Rounds while the opposing player completes the turn.

E. Check Military Operations Phase: Each player determines if they are penalized Victory Points for failing to perform enough Military Operations during the turn (see 8.2). Each player then resets his Military Operations markers back to zero.

F. Reveal Held Card: During Tournament or competitive play, both players should reveal any held cards to their opponents to ensure that all required scoring cards are played during the round. Since this detracts from some elements of secrecy in the game, it is not necessary to use this rule in a non-competitive environment.

G. Flip China Card: If ‘The China Card’ was passed face-down during the turn, flip it face-up now.

H. Advance Turn Marker: Move the Turn Marker to the next turn. If it is the end of turn 3, shuffle the Mid War cards into the draw deck. If it is the end of turn 7, shuffle the Late war cards into the draw deck.

I. Final Scoring: At the end of turn �0, perform Final Scoring as described in the Scoring rules.

5.0 CARD PLAY5.1 Cards may be played in one of two ways: as Events or Op-erations. Ordinarily, players will hold one card in their hand at the end of the turn. All other cards will be used for events or operations. Players may not forgo their turn by declining to play a card, or by discarding a card from their hand.

5.2 Events Associated With Your Opponent: If a player plays a card as an Operation, and the card’s Event is associated only with his opponent, the Event still occurs (and the card, if it has an asterisk after the Event title, is removed).NOTE: When playing a card for operations and it triggers your opponent’s event, your opponent implements the event text as if they had played the card themselves.• The phasing player always decides whether the event is to take

place before or after the Operations are conducted.• If a card play triggers an opponent’s Event, but that Event

cannot occur because a prerequisite card has not been played, or a condition expressed in the Event has not been met, the Event does not occur. In this instance, cards with an asterisk Event (marked *) are returned to the discard pile, not removed from the game.

• If a card play triggers an opponent’s Event, but play of that event has been prohibited by a superseding Event card, then the Event does not occur, and the card remains in play for Operations points only.

• If a card play triggers an opponent’s Event, but the event results in no effect, the Event is still considered played, and would still be removed if it has an asterisk.

EXAMPLE 1: The USSR player plays the ‘NATO’ card before the ‘Marshall Plan’ or ‘Warsaw Pact’ cards have been played. The USSR player would get the benefit of the 4 Operations points, but the US would not get the ‘NATO’ event. However, despite being asterisked, the ‘NATO’ card would not be removed from play. It would be placed in the discard pile to be reshuffled and possibly played later.EXAMPLE 2: The US player plays ‘Arab-Israeli War’ for 2 Op-erations. However, during his previous Action Round he played ‘Camp David Accords’ which prohibits play of ‘Arab-Israeli War’ as an Event. The US player would still conduct 2 Operations, but the USSR player would not get the benefit of the Event, and the card would not be eliminated from the game.EXAMPLE 3: The USSR Player plays ‘Alliance for Progress;’ however, the US Player does not control a Battleground country in either South or Central America. Nevertheless, the Event is considered played, and the card would be removed from the game after the USSR player’s round.

EXAMPLE 4: The USSR player plays ‘Star Wars’, but the US player is ahead on the Space Race track. The result is no effect and the ‘Star Wars’ card is returned to the discard pile.

5.3 When a card played as an Event requires the play or discard of another card of a specific value, a higher valued card will always satisfy the requirement.

EXAMPLE: The ‘Quagmire’ card requires the US player to dis-card a 2 Operations card. If the US plays a 3 Operations card, the requirement is still met.

5.4 When an event forces a player to discard a card, the Event on the discarded card is not implemented. This rule also applies to Scoring cards.

5.5 Except as noted in rule �0.�.5, card text that contradicts the written rules supersedes the written rules.

Allows play of NATO.Event may not be usedbefore NATO is played.

Page 6: RULE BOOK - WordPress.com · 2016. 10. 24. · and brown lines on the map. Brown lines represent connections within a region. Red dashed lines represent connections between countries

Twilight Struggle —2nd Edition—6

© 2007 GMT Games, LLC

6.1.3 Influence markers may be placed in multiple regions and multiple countries up to the number of Operations Points on the card played.

EXAMPLE: The US player has existing markers in Panama and South Korea. The US player uses a 3 Operations Point card to place more influence. The US player may place Influence markers in both Costa Rica and Colombia. However, he cannot place Influence markers in Costa Rica and then Nicaragua. On the other hand, since Influence markers are already present, he could use any remaining operation points to strengthen South Korea or its neighboring countries.

6.1.4 Influence markers may always be placed in any country that is adjacent (connected) to the phasing player’s superpower space.

6.1.5 Influence markers are treated like cash. Players may ‘break’ a large denomination into smaller denominations at any time. Additionally, the number of Influence markers included in the game is not an absolute limit. Small poker chips, coins or wooden blocks can be utilized to substitute in the event of a marker shortage.

6.1.6 If a player has two or more markers in a country, place the larger denomination on top. Influence markers are open to inspection at all times.

6.2 REALIGNMENT ROLLS6.2.1 Realignment rolls are used to reduce enemy Influence in a country. To attempt a Realignment roll, the acting player need not have any Influence in the target country or in any adjacent country—although this improves the chance of success greatly. When using a card for Realignment rolls, the player may resolve each roll before declaring the next target. Countries may be tar-geted for Realignment more than once per Action Round.

6.2.2 It costs one Operations point to make a Realignment roll. Each player rolls a die and the high roller may remove the dif-ference between the rolls from their opponent’s Influence in the target country. Ties are considered a draw, and no markers are removed. Each player modifies his die roll:• +� for each adjacent controlled country,• +1 if they have more Influence in the target country than their

opponent,• +� if your Superpower is adjacent to the target country.

6.0 OPERATIONSOperations can be used in the following ways: to place Influence markers, to make Realignment rolls, to attempt Coups, or to at-tempt advancement in the Space Race. When a card is played as an Operations card, the player must choose to use all of the Opera-tions points on one of the following options: Marker Placement, Realignment rolls, Coup Attempts or a Space Race attempt.

6.1 PLACING INFLUENCE MARKERS“Everyone imposes his own system as far as his army can reach.” —Joseph Stalin

6.1.1 Influence markers are placed one at a time. However, all markers must be placed with, or adjacent to, friendly markers that were in place at the start of the phasing player’s Action Round. Exception: markers placed when required by an Event are not subject to this restriction, unless specifically stated otherwise on the card. If the amount of influence is sufficent to gain control of the country, place the marker on its darker side.

6.1.2 It costs one (1) Operations point to place an Influence marker in a country that is friendly-Controlled or uncontrolled. It costs two (2) Operations points to place an Influence marker in an enemy-Controlled country. If a country’s Control status changes while placing Influence markers, additional markers placed during that Action Round are placed at the lower cost.

EXAMPLE: The US player has 2 Influence markers in Turkey and the USSR player has none. Therefore, the US controls Turkey. The USSR player uses a 4 Operations point card to place Influence markers. When placing markers in Turkey, the first marker costs 2 Operations points. However, after placement of the first USSR influence marker, the US no longer exceeds USSR influence in Turkey by the Stability Number of 2, thus, a second or third Soviet influence marker would only cost 1 operation point per marker. If the US player started with only 1 influence marker in Turkey, the US player would not control Turkey. Therefore, any Soviet influence placement would only cost 1 operations point per marker.

EXAMPLE: The US player controls Turkey and Greece and the USSR player controls Syria and Lebanon. Neither player controls Romania and Bulgaria

Page 7: RULE BOOK - WordPress.com · 2016. 10. 24. · and brown lines on the map. Brown lines represent connections within a region. Red dashed lines represent connections between countries

Twilight Struggle —2nd Edition— 7

© 2007 GMT Games, LLC

EXAMPLE: The US player targets North Korea for Realignment. There are 3 USSR Influence points in North Korea, while the US player has none. The US player has no modifiers—he does not control any adjacent countries and has less Influence in North Korea then the Soviets. The USSR player has +1 because North Korea is adjacent to the USSR and +1 for having more Influence in North Korea then the US. The US player gets lucky and rolls a 5 while the USSR player rolls a 2 which is modified to 4. The result is the USSR player must remove one Influence point from North Korea.

6.2.3 No Influence is ever added to a country as a result of a Realignment roll.

6.3 COUP ATTEMPTS6.3.1 A Coup represents operations short of full-scale war to change the composition of a target country’s government. A player attempting a Coup need not have any Influence in the target country or in an adjacent country to attempt the Coup. However, your opponent must have Influence markers in the target country for a Coup to be attempted.

6.3.2 To resolve a Coup attempt, multiply the Stability Number of the target country by two (x2). Then roll a die and add the Operations points on the card to it. If this modified die roll is greater than the doubled stability number, the coup is success-ful, otherwise it fails. If the coup is successful remove opposing Influence markers equal to the difference from the target country. If there are insufficient opposing Influence markers to remove, add friendly Influence markers to make up the difference.

6.3.3 Move the marker on the Military Operations track up the number of spaces equal to the Operations value of the card played.

EXAMPLE: The US player plays a 3 Operations card to conduct a coup attempt in Mexico. The US player has no Influence in Mexico; the USSR player has 2 Influence points. First the US player adjusts his marker on the Military Operations Track to show that he has spent three points on Military Operations this turn (see 8.2). Then he rolls the die for a 4 and adds his Operations Number (3) to get a 7. He now subtracts twice the value of Mexico’s Stability Number (2x2=4) from this result to get a final total of 3. This is the num-ber of Influence markers he may remove from/add to Mexico. First, the US would remove the 2 Soviet Influence markers, then place 1 US Influence marker.

6.3.4 Any Coup attempt in a Battleground country degrades the DEFCON status one level (towards Nuclear War).

6.3.5 Cards that state a player may make a “free Coup roll” in a particular region may ignore the geographic restrictions of the current DEFCON level (see 8.�.5). However, a “free Coup roll” used against a Battleground country would still lower DEFCON as per 6.3.4.

6.4 THE SPACE RACE“We go into space because whatever mankind must undertake, free men must fully share . . . I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before the decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth.” —John F. Kennedy

6.4.1 The Space Race track contains a marker for each superpow-er. Operations points may be spent by a superpower to attempt to move its marker to the next box on the track. To do so, play a card with an Operations point value equal to or greater than the number shown on the track into which you are attempting to advance. Roll the die: if the number falls within the range listed in the target box on the Space Race track, move your marker to the new box.

6.4.2 A player may only play � card per turn in an attempt to advance in the Space Race. Exception: Space Race Track Special Abilities and certain Events may alter this one-card limitation, or advance the superpower’s marker on the Space Race track.

6.4.3 Advancing along the Space Race track results in an award of Victory Points, a special ability, or both. Five boxes on the Space Race track are marked with two numbers divided by a slash, e.g. Lunar Orbit has the numbers 3/1. The left-hand num-ber is the number of Victory Points awarded to the first player to reach that box; the right-hand number is the number of Victory Points awarded to the second player to reach that box. Victory Points granted take effect immediately. All Space Race Victory Points are cumulative.

6.4.4 Special abilities are granted only to the first player to reach the space. The special effect is immediately cancelled when the second player reaches that box.

• Upon reaching space 2 (Animal in Space), the player is allowed to play two Space Race cards per turn (instead of the usual one).

• Upon reaching space 4 (Man in Earth Orbit), the opposing player must select and reveal his or her Headline Event before the player with a ‘Man in Earth Orbit’ makes his/her Headline Event selection.

• Upon reaching space 6 (Eagle/Bear has Landed), the player may discard their Held Card at the end of the turn

• Upon reaching space 8 (Space Station), the player may play eight (8) Action Rounds per turn.

The effects of these special abilities are immediate and cumula-tive.

EXAMPLE: The USSR player successfully reaches space 2. He may play a second Space Race Card during his next Action Round. If the USSR player reached space 4 before the US player had reached space 2, the USSR player could play two Space Race cards per turn, and require the US Player to show his Headline Phase event before selecting his own.

6.4.5 Regardless of text on the card, an Event discarded to make a die roll to advance on the Space Race track is not implemented.

Page 8: RULE BOOK - WordPress.com · 2016. 10. 24. · and brown lines on the map. Brown lines represent connections within a region. Red dashed lines represent connections between countries

Twilight Struggle —2nd Edition—8

© 2007 GMT Games, LLC

The card is placed in the discard pile.

DESIGN NOTE: The Space Race is your ‘safety valve.’ If you hold a card whose Event is a good one for your opponent, and you don’t want the Event to occur, you can dump it on the Space Race (provided it has enough Operations points to qualify for an attempt to move forward).

6.4.6 If a player reaches the final box in the Space Race, no more cards may be expended in the Space Race by that player for the remainder of the game.

7.0 EVENTS“Do you, Ambassador Zorin, deny that the USSR has placed and is placing medium – and intermediate – range missiles and sites in Cuba? Yes or no? Don’t wait for the translation! Yes or no?” —Adlai Stevenson, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations

7.1 A player may play a card as an Event instead of Operations. If the Event is associated with his or her own superpower, or is associated with both superpowers, it takes effect as directed by the card’s text.

7.2 The Southeast Asia Scoring card has an asterisk following the Event title, and is the only scoring card removed after play.

7.3 Permanent Events: Some Event cards have an underlined title, e.g. Flower Power. This indicates that the effects of these Events last for the duration of the game. When such cards are played as Events, place them to the side of the map, or place their markers on the Turn Track, as a reminder of their ongoing effects.

7.4 Some event cards modify the Operations value of cards that follow. These modifiers should be applied in aggregate, and can modify ‘The China Card’.

EXAMPLE: The US player plays the Red Scare/Purge event during the Headline Phase. Ordinarily, all USSR cards would subtract one from their Operations value. However, for his Headline card, the USSR played Vietnam Revolts. This event gives the Soviet player +1 to all operations played in SE Asia. For his first play, the USSR chooses ‘The China Card’. He plays all points in SE Asia for 5 operations points. This is modified by the Vietnam Revolts card, giving the USSR player 6 operation points. However, the US Red Scare/Purge card brings the total down to 5 operations points.

7.4.1 Events modifying the Operations value of a card only apply to one player. The modifier is not transferable to their opponent by virtue of a card taken from their opponent’s hand.

EXAMPLE: The USSR player has played ‘Brezhnev Doctrine’ as an Event, and therefore receives a +1 Operations value modifier for all of his cards. If the US player steals one of his cards, for example by playing ‘Grain Sales to the Soviets’, the US player does not benefit from a +1 Operations value modifier on that card.

7.4.2 Events modifying the Operations value of subsequently played cards do so for all purposes.

EXAMPLE 1: If the Soviet player has played ‘Red Scare/Purge’ on the US player, and the US player played a 2 Operations card for a Coup, the US player would only add 1 to his Coup roll for the value of the card, and would receive 1 point of the Required Military Operations track.

EXAMPLE 2: If the Soviet player played ‘Brezhnev Doctrine’ earlier in the turn, he could play a 1 Op card to make a required roll under ‘Bear Trap’.

EXAMPLE 3: If the US player played ‘Containment’ earlier in the turn, he could play ‘CIA Created’ subsequently and use 2 Ops.

7.5 If an Event becomes unplayable due to its cancellation or restriction by another Event card, the unplayable Event card may still be used for its Operations value.

7.6 War Events: There are 5 “War” Events in the deck: Korean War, Arab-Israeli War, Indo-Pakistani War, Brush War, and Iran-Iraq War. These Events may be played regardless of the absence of either player’s influence points in either the attacking or defending countries. If there is no influence at risk in the war, the Event’s player still receives victory points upon success, and required military operations irrespective of success (see 8.2.4)

8.0 DEFCON STATUS AND MILITARY OPERATIONS“Strange game. The only winning move is not to play.”—“Joshua” the N.O.R.A.D computer from Wargames.

8.1 The DEFCON Track8.1.1 DEFCON status measures nuclear tension in the game. The DEFCON level begins the game at its maximum ‘peace’ level of 5. It can go down and back up due to events and actions by the players, but if, at any point, it decreases to �, the game ends immediately.

8.1.2 The DEFCON status may never Improve above 5. Any event that would Improve the DEFCON status above 5 has no DEFCON effect.

8.1.3 If DEFCON � status is reached, nuclear war breaks out and the game ends immediately. The phasing player is responsible for the status marker moving to DEFCON �, and loses the game.

EXAMPLE: The US player plays Olympic Games, and the DE-FCON status is at 2. The USSR player boycotts the game. The

Page 9: RULE BOOK - WordPress.com · 2016. 10. 24. · and brown lines on the map. Brown lines represent connections within a region. Red dashed lines represent connections between countries

Twilight Struggle —2nd Edition— 9

© 2007 GMT Games, LLC

DEFCON status is degraded to level 1, and nuclear war is trig-gered. The US player, as the phasing player, has lost.

8.1.4 Any Coup attempt in a Battleground country degrades the DEFCON status one level.

8.1.5 The consequences of the DEFCON status levels are on the DEFCON Track, and are reproduced here:• DEFCON 5: No effect• DEFCON 4: No Coup or Realignment rolls are permitted in

Europe.• DEFCON 3: No Coup or Realignment rolls are permitted in

Europe or Asia.• DEFCON 2: No Coup or Realignment rolls are permitted in

Europe, Asia, or the Middle East.• DEFCON 1: Game over. The player responsible for the status

going to � (the Phasing Player) loses the game.

PLAY NOTE: Players may place a DEFCON Re-striction marker in the region to serve as a reminder that no Realignment or Coups are permitted.

8.1.6 Improve DEFCON Status Phase. At the beginning of any turn in which the DEFCON status is lower than 5, Improve the DEFCON status by �.

8.1.7 Improve & Degrade. In all cases, when the rules or cards indicate to ‘improve’ the DEFCON status, this means to move the DEFCON marker to a higher DEFCON number, while ‘de-grade’ means to move the DEFCON marker to a lower DEFCON number.

8.2 Required Military Operations “Restraint? Why are you so concerned with saving their lives? The whole idea is to kill the bastards. At the end of the war, if there are two Americans and one Russian left alive, we win.” —Gen. Thomas Power, U.S. Strategic Air Command

8.2.1 By the end of each turn, each player must have played a certain number of Military Operations. Failure to do so gives Victory Points to your opponent. The number of Military Operations required each turn is equal to the current DEFCON status number. If fewer Military Operations are carried out, the opponent gains � VP per unplayed Military Operations point.

EXAMPLE: At the end of the turn the US player has spent two points in Military Operations. If the DEFCON level is currently at 4 the USSR player would gain 2 Victory Points.

8.2.2 Coup attempts and war events are Military Operations. Realignment Rolls are not considered Military Operations.

8.2.3 When Operations points are played in a Coup attempt, or when a War Event card is played (e.g., Arab-Israeli War, Korean War, etc.), the phasing player moves his marker on the Military Operations track a number of spaces equal to the Operations value of the card.

8.2.4 If a player uses a card for Operations points, and thereby triggers a War Event associated with his opponent, his opponent’s Military marker is moved on the Military Operations track as directed by the Event text.

EXAMPLE: The US player uses the ‘Arab-Israeli War’ card for Operations points, thereby also triggering the War Event (as it is associated with the Soviet Union player). In addition to the Event taking place as directed on the card, the USSR player moves his Military Operations marker two spaces on the Military Operations track.

8.2.5 Events that allow a free Coup roll do not count towards required Military Operations.

9.0 CHINA9.1 China’s role in the Cold War is abstracted through ‘The China Card’. Either player may play ‘The China Card’ as if it were part of his regular hand. ‘The China Card’ does not count towards the hand limit.

9.2 Every play of ‘The China Card’ counts as one of the Actions (6 or 7) that a player is permitted during a turn. As a result, players may have more cards left in their hand than usual, if ‘The China Card’ is played.

9.3 When ‘The China Card’ is played, it is immediately handed to your opponent face down. It may not be played again by your opponent this turn. At the end of the turn, it is flipped face up, ready for your opponent to play.

9.4 If ‘The China Card’ is passed as a result of an Event, the card is passed face up and may be played by the new owning player during the same turn.

9.5 ‘The China Card’ may not be played:• during the Headline Phase,• if it prevents the play of a Scoring card, or• as a discard required by an Event.

9.6 To receive the bonus +� Operations point indicated on ‘The China Card’, all of the Operations Points on the card must be spent in Asia (including Southeast Asia).

9.7 The Operations Point value of ‘The China Card’ may be modified by other Event Cards.

9.8 Play of ‘The China Card’ can never be compelled by events or a shortage of cards during the action rounds.

Page 10: RULE BOOK - WordPress.com · 2016. 10. 24. · and brown lines on the map. Brown lines represent connections within a region. Red dashed lines represent connections between countries

Twilight Struggle —2nd Edition—�0

© 2007 GMT Games, LLC

10.0 SCORING AND VICTORYThe object of the game is to score Victory Points (VPs). Re-gional Victory Points are scored through geographic Influence over the six Regions. VPs can also be received through the play of certain Events. Each region has its own ‘scoring card’. Playing a scoring card causes Victory Points to be scored, based on how much influence each superpower has in that region at the time the card is played.

PLAY NOTE: Trying to play scor-ing cards to coincide with your superpower’s peak influence in a region is often a crucial factor in winning the game.

10.1 SCORING 10.1.1 The following terms are used during Regional Scoring:Presence: A superpower has Presence in a Region if it Controls at least one country in that Region.Domination: A superpower achieves Domination of a Region if it Controls more countries in that Region than its opponent, and it Controls more Battleground countries in that Region than its opponent. A superpower must Control at least one non-Battle-ground and one Battleground country in a Region in order to achieve Domination of that Region.Control: A superpower has Control of a Region if it Controls more countries in that Region than its opponent, and Controls all of the Battleground countries in that Region.10.1.2 Players score additional points during Regional Scoring, as follows:• +� VP per country they Control in the scoring region that is

adjacent to the enemy superpower • +� VP per Battleground country that they Control in the scor-

ing region.

• Victory points are then cumulated for both players, and the net difference between the two scores is marked on the Victory Point Track.

EXAMPLE: The USSR plays the Central American Scoring card. The USSR controls Cuba, Haiti and the Dominican Re-public. The United States controls Guatemala, and has 1 point of influence in Panama. The USSR player would therefore get points for Dominating Central America (3 VPs) + 1 VP for con-trol of a battleground country (Cuba). +1 VP for Cuba’s being adjacent to your opponent’s home nation for a total of 5 VPs. The United States would receive 1 VP for presence in Central America since he controls Guatemala. Since the United States only has 1 Influence point in Panama, he does not control it, and therefore controls no battleground countries. That is why the USSR player scores Dominance points. He controls more

battleground countries (Cuba) and more countries overall. He also meets the “at least one non-battleground country” test through control of either Haiti or the Dominican Republic. Hav-ing calculated relative victory points, 5 VPs for the USSR, and 1 VP for the US, you subtract the US VPs from the Soviets, and move the VP point track a net 4 spaces toward Soviet victory.

10.1.3 Playing certain card Events may result in Victory Points being scored.

10.1.4 Victory Points may be scored due to your opponent’s failure to perform the number of required military operations during the turn (8.2).

10.1.5 A player may not be forced to Hold a Scoring Card through the effects of an Event(s).

10.2 The Victory Point Track10.2.1 The Victory Point Track shows a range of scoring possibili-ties from US-20 (US automatic victory) to USSR-20 (USSR auto-matic victory). At the start of the game, place the VP marker in the center of the chart, on the box marked At Start. This box represents zero points, or total equilibrium of the two sides. This box should be counted as a space when players’ scores are adjusted.EXAMPLE: If the scoring marker is on the USSR-1 box, and the US player scores 2 VPs, the marker should move 2 spaces to the US-1 box.

10.2.2 Wherever a card states that the player ‘gains’ a Victory Point, this means that the VP marker is moved that many spaces in that player’s favor, i.e., if the VP marker is on the �0 space (US winning) and the USSR player gains 2 VP, the marker is moved to the 8 space on the VP track.

10.2.3 If both players earn Victory Points from the same card or Event play, apply only the difference in Victory Points awarded.

10.3 VICTORY10.3.1 Automatic Victory. There are several ways to achieve an automatic victory in Twilight Struggle:• The instant one player reaches a score of 20 VP, the game is

over and that player is the winner. NOTE: All VP awards (for both players) that are scored during an event or scoring card must be applied prior to determining automatic victory.

• If either side Controls Europe, that side wins when the Europe Scoring card is played.

• Nuclear War: A player may also win the instant his opponent causes the DEFCON level to reach �.

10.3.2 End Game Victory. If neither side has achieved victory of any kind by the end of turn �0, then every Region is scored as if its regional scoring card had just been played (these new VPs are added to the current score). Southeast Asia is not scored separately: it is included in the Asia scoring calculations. Every Region’s score must be calculated before final victory is deter-mined. Reaching 20 VPs does not result in Automatic Victory during scoring at the end of turn �0; however, Control of Europe

Page 11: RULE BOOK - WordPress.com · 2016. 10. 24. · and brown lines on the map. Brown lines represent connections within a region. Red dashed lines represent connections between countries

Twilight Struggle —2nd Edition— ��

© 2007 GMT Games, LLC

does grant automatic victory to the controlling player, regardless of scoring elsewhere.

Once all regions have been scored, victory goes to the player who has accrued most VPs. If the VP marker is on a positive number, the US wins; if the VP marker is on a negative number, the USSR wins. If the VP marker is on zero, the game ends in a draw.

11.0 TOURNAMENT PLAYThese rules are optional, and are not required for ‘friendly’ play. They are simply offered as guidelines on conducting Twilight Struggle as a competitive tournament game.

11.1.1 During tournament play, all cards held at the end of the round should be revealed to your opponent. This prevents ac-cidental or deliberate holding of scoring cards.

11.1.2 Any player found holding a scoring card during the Reveal Held Card phase is said to have started an accidental nuclear war, and loses immediately.

11.1.3 During tournament play, the Soviet player should receive the first card of every deal. The deal should alternate back and forth between the players until they have received their full hand size. A player may receive consecutive cards in a deal if they require more cards than their opponent.

12.0 THE CHINESE CIVIL WAR VARIANTThe Chinese Civil War Variant is meant to be played within the context of the existing rules regarding the China Card (see 9.0). However, where these rules conflict with existing rules or event card text, this section of the rules takes precedence.

12.1 The Chinese Civil War spaceThe Chinese Civil War space is considered adjacent to the Soviet Union and only the Soviet Union. The space is considered to be in Asia, but not South East Asia. It does not affect any scoring card. The only action that may be taken on the Chinese Civil War space is the placement of Influence Points by the Soviet player. The US player may not use Operations or events of any kind to effect the Chinese Civil War space. Once the Soviet player has placed 3 Influence Points on the Chinese Civil War space, it has no further effect. The markers may be returned to the Soviet player’s pool, and the Chinese Civil War space is ignored for the remainder of the game.

12.2 ControlThe Soviet Union must place three Influence on the Chinese Civil War space to Control it. Soviet Influence is placed in the Chinese Civil War space according to the rules for placing influ-ence in countries (see 6.�). If the China card remains unclaimed throughout the game, no player receives the victory point for possession of the China Card during end game scoring.

12.3 Impact of ControlUntil the Soviet Player has placed 3 Influence Points on the Chinese Civil War space, the China Card is in no player’s pos-session. Once the Soviet player had placed 3 Influence Points into the space, the player immediately receives the China Card face up and ready for play. Additionally, the ban on play of the Red Scare/Purge and Formosan Resolution events is immedi-ately lifted.

12.4 Event RestrictionsUntil the Soviet player has placed 3 Influence Points on the Chinese Civil War space, the Soviet player may not play Red ScaRe/PuRge nor cultuRal Revolution as events. Additionally, the US player may not play Formosan Resolution as an event. These cards may be played for Operations Points normally.

12.4.1 Special US Condition: For the purposes of playing uS-SuRi RiveR SkiRmiSh or nixon PlayS the china caRd as events, the US is deemed to be in possession of the China Card if the Soviet Player has not yet placed the 3 Influence Points on the Chinese Civil War space.

12.4.2 Until the Soviet Player has placed 3 Influence Points on the Chinese Civil War space the Russian player subtracts an additional � when rolling for the resolution of the koRean WaR event.

12.4.3 Events made unplayable or restricted due to �2.4 are still playable for Operations points as per rule 7.5.

Page 12: RULE BOOK - WordPress.com · 2016. 10. 24. · and brown lines on the map. Brown lines represent connections within a region. Red dashed lines represent connections between countries

Twilight Struggle —2nd Edition—�2

© 2007 GMT Games, LLC

A Late War Scenario for Twilight StruggleBy Volko Ruhnke

C3i Magazine #19, copyright RBM Studio

If you’ve played with your TS set as much as I have, you may find the Early and Mid-War event cards looking a little worn compared to the less often used Late War events. For those of you who would like to dive right into the post-Quagmire era and try out the cool possibilities of a Landed Eagle, Star Wars, and Chernobyl, or Aldrich Ames, the Hostage Crisis, and Ter-rorism, here’s a scenario that cuts to the chase.

My sense of the game-turn structure is that the turns roughly represent the following years:

Turn � = �945-�948 Turn 2 = �949-�952 Turn 3 = �953-�956 Turn 4 = �957-�960 Turn 5 = �96�-�964 Turn 6 = �965-�969 Turn 7 = �970-�974 Turn 8 = �975-�979 Turn 9 = �980-�984 Turn �0 = �985-�989.

Thus, the Late War period would begin in �975, say, with the Fall of Saigon. So I have used that date (and a dose of inter-pretation of history into the TS fabric) to set the influence and events for the opening of the Late War Scenario.

To my surprise, the US appears to begin the post-Vietnam era in a decidedly strong position in game turns. Whether or not the dominoes have fallen, the US still dominates Asia, for example. Play of the scenario showed that a US Automatic Victory is well within reach, so the Soviet player in this sce-nario wins just for engineering a more graceful decline of the Socialist experiment.

Have fun, and please try to avoid The Day After….

Markers: • Turn at 8 • DEFCON at 4 • Space Race at Soviet Space Walk; US Eagle Landed • VP at -4

Events in play countersUS/Japan Pact, Marshall Plan, NATO, Warsaw Pact, DeGaulle, Flower Power.

Control and Influence • US Dominates South America and Asia• Soviets Dominate Middle East.

Mark influence as minimum needed for control by the indicated side except where shown as (US#/Sov#).

US Control: UK Italy Benelux W. Germany (5/1) Denmark NorwayIsrael Iran Pakistan TurkeyZaire Somalia Kenya NigeriaJapan South Korea Taiwan Philippines (3/1) Thailand Indonesia Australia Malaysia (3/1) Nicaragua Panama Haiti HondurasVenezuela Chile Argentina Colombia (2/1) Dominican Republic

Soviet Control:E. Germany Poland Hungary Czechoslovakia Bulgaria Cuba North KoreaIraq Syria (0/3) India AfghanistanLibya Algeria Ethiopia ZimbabweAngola (1/3) Laos (0/2) Vietnam (0/5)SE African States (0/2) Neutral with Influence-- Spain (1/0) France (3/1) Romania (1/3) Jordan (2/2) Egypt (1/0) South Africa (2/1) Finland (1/2) Burma (0/1) Peru (2/1) Yugoslavia (1/2) Saudi Arabia (2/0)

Cards:Remove all Early and MidWar * (Removable) Events EXCEPT BeaR tRaP, camP david, John Paul, Panama canal..

Give china caRd to Soviet player.

Shuffle remaining Early, MidWar, and Late War cards together and deal to begin Turn 8.

Victory:After Turn 10 final scoring or if US plays WARGAMES event, US must have 20+ VP or Soviet player wins.

Page 13: RULE BOOK - WordPress.com · 2016. 10. 24. · and brown lines on the map. Brown lines represent connections within a region. Red dashed lines represent connections between countries

Twilight Struggle —2nd Edition— �3

© 2007 GMT Games, LLC

Game CreditsGAME DESIGN: Jason Matthews & Ananda GuptaDEVELOPMENT: Jason MatthewsDEVELOPMENT ASSISTANT: George Young, and William F. Ramsay, Jr.ART DIRECTOR: Rodger MacGowanBOX ART AND PACKAGE DESIGN: Rodger MacGowanMAP: Mark Simonitch and Guillaume RiesCOUNTERS AND RULES LAYOUT: Mark SimonitchPLAYTESTING: Greg Schloesser, Bill Edwards, Marvin Birnbaum, Brad and Brian Stock, Peter Reese, Joe Rossi Jr., Greg Kniaz, PJ Glowacki, Steve Viltoft, Doug Austin, Shawn Metcalf, Steve Kosakowski, Ken GutermuthPROOFREADING: Kevin Duke, Tom WildePRODUCTION COORDINATION: Tony CurtisPRODUCERS: Tony Curtis, Rodger MacGowan, Andy Lewis, Gene Billingsley and Mark SimonitchSpecial thanks to Charles Féaux de la Croix, David Wilson, Ben & Marcia Baldanza, and Dave Kurtz.

DESIGNER OPTIONAL RULESThese rules were also playtested by the designers during the development of Twilight Struggle, but for various reasons were dropped by the wayside on the road to publication. Players seeking some variety in the play of the game may find these rules interesting and worthwhile. Tournament GMs are welcome to incorporate some or all of these rules into their tournaments, provided notice is given to players.

Realignment RollsWe tried many variations on the rules for Realignments. One of the great design challenges in TS was figuring out a simple system to handle superpower-directed political change that wasn’t violent enough to count as a Coup attempt. We are happy with the rules we arrived with, but if players wish to see some of the other paths we tried, here they are. They can be played with separately or all together.

Realignment rolls are not subject to geographic DEFCON re-strictions. That is, countries in any regions may be targeted for Realignment rolls regardless of the current DEFCON level.

The phasing player may not lose Influence in a country tar-geted for Realignment.

Operations points may be used to purchase both Influence markers and Realignment rolls, at normal costs, but Influ-ence markers may not be placed in a country already targeted with a Realignment roll during the current action round, and Realignment rolls may not be targeted at countries that have had Influence markers placed in them during the current action round.

The Space RaceA player who “dumps” a card on the Space Race may, at his choice, elect not to roll the die (thus forgoing any chance of advancing on the track).

Page 14: RULE BOOK - WordPress.com · 2016. 10. 24. · and brown lines on the map. Brown lines represent connections within a region. Red dashed lines represent connections between countries

Twilight Struggle —2nd Edition—�4

© 2007 GMT Games, LLC

Extended Example of Play

What follows is an example of play taken from the finals of the Boardgame Players Association online tournament. This final features two of the finest Twilight Struggle players in the country—Chris Withers and Stefan Mecay. Stefan has won every Twilight Struggle tournament held at the World Boardgaming Champion-ships. Chris, on the other hand, was the only player to hand Stefan a defeat in the preliminary rounds of this tournament.

In this game, none of the optional cards are in play. Additionally, the two players have bid for sides. Chris wins the bidding and chooses the Soviets. Stefan takes the underdogs, but due to bid-ding his US begins the game with an additional four Influence Points. These points may only be placed in countries eligible for US Influence during the game setup.

To help players follow along, the number of Influence Points in a country after the action is performed is indicated in parenthesis. The number before the slash is US influence and the number after the slash is USSR influence (US/USSR). If the number is bold and with a “C”, it indicates control.

Soviet Setup: 4 IP to Poland (0/4C), 1 IP to East Germany (0/4C), 1 IP to Yugoslavia (0/1).

US Setup: 2 IP to West Germany (2/0), 4 IP to Italy (4C/0), 1 IP to France (1/0); Bonus Bid = � IP to Iran (2C/0), 2 IP to France (3C/0), 2 IP to West Germany (4C/0).

This is a fairly standard setup. Note that the decision on where to put your starting influence is made AFTER you examine your starting hand. The Soviets have locked down Poland and East Germany. They’ve put 1 Influence in Yugoslavia to threaten Italy and Greece. That 1 IP is always a risk, as it can be flipped by Independent Reds.

Stefan is attempting to deprive the Soviets of any obvious first coup locations by using the bid IPs to strengthen Iran. Fur-thermore, he has bolstered the US position in Western Europe, such that an initial European Scoring Card would result in US dominance.

TURN 1Headline PhaseSoviet: olymPic gameS (2 Ops)US: mideaSt ScoRing (0 Ops)

In this phase both players choose a card from their hand. The event on that card will then be implemented. The card with the highest operations is implemented first. In the event of a tie, the US Card is implemented first.

Stefan has made a risky choice by playing the Mideast Scoring card right off the bat. Had the Soviets played a headline card that allowed them to place Influence, those IPs would certainly have plopped down in the Mideast making this stealth play a potential nightmare. Unfortunately for Chris, his headline card is a non-threatening effort to nail a couple of early victory points.

The US Scores 4 for the Mideast Scoring (control of Iran) and the Soviets win the first post-war Olympics. The net result is US +2.

Action RoundsUSSR Action Round 1: NATO (4 Ops) to Coup Iran. Rolls 6, US influence = 0, Soviet Influence 4. Soviets gain 4 Mil Ops, and DEFCON drops to 4.

This is the classical opening move. Iran is the linchpin to the US position to the Middle East and ultimately to the South Asian prizes of Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. Because of the extra influence from the starting bid, it takes a larger card to ensure success. Chris does so with a big roll. Mr. Truman must be asleep at the wheel while the dominoes are falling.

US Action Round 1: FoRmoSan ReSolu-tion (2 Ops) as Influence points. Adds 1 to Malaysia (1/0) and 1 to Columbia (1/0).

Stefan appears to be creating a bit of a dilemma here for the Soviet player. He is threatening the key Asian battleground in Thailand while also threatening to break

#1: At Start setup in Europe and upper Middle East.

Extended Example of Play

Page 15: RULE BOOK - WordPress.com · 2016. 10. 24. · and brown lines on the map. Brown lines represent connections within a region. Red dashed lines represent connections between countries

Twilight Struggle —2nd Edition— �5

© 2007 GMT Games, LLC

out in South America. Without an interesting event, the Soviet player can only deal with one of these problems via a coup. The South American play is an illustration of mid-term planning. However, a key to good Twilight Struggle play is switching the tempo of the game by putting your opponent on the defensive. Doing so requires players to stop reacting, and engage in a little planning. That’s exactly what Stefan is trying to do.

USSR Action Round 2: de-Stalinization (3 Ops) as the Event. Adds 1 to Chile (0/1), Venezuela (0/1), Thailand (0/1) and Ma-laysia (1/1) taken from Finland (0/0), Yugoslavia (0/0) and 2 from Iran (0/2).

Unfortunately for Stefan, Chris’ Soviets have the perfect counter. Chris would probably have preferred to have a little more influ-ence on the board before he started reshuffling it to deal with Stefan’s challenge, but still, this will do. Suddenly, Chris is on the offensive in both South America and Asia.

US Action Round 2: containment (3 Ops) to Coup Thailand. Rolls �, No effect. US gains 3 Mil Ops, and DEFCON drops to 3.

Swing and a miss. This was a major missed opportunity for the

Americans. The Soviets felt compelled to move into Thailand even though it was still under a Coup threat given the DEFCON level. US success here would have truly grounded the American position in Asia. India and Pakistan would quickly be on the watch list. But it was not to be.

USSR Action Round 3: COMECON (3 Ops) as Influence points. Adds 1 to Thailand (0/2C), Venezuela (0/2C) and Afghanistan (0/1).

Chris uses the breather afforded by the Americans’ failed coup in Thailand to solidify his position there, and in South American. It’s a rocky start for the land of the free, and home of the brave.

US Action Round 3: un inteRvention (2 Ops) with Fidel (2 Ops) as the event. Coup in Venezuela. Rolls a �, No effect. US gains 2 Mil Ops, and DEFCON drops to 2.

Wow, does someone need firing at the CIA! Again, the nice thing about the early Columbia/Malaysia pincer was that it put pres-sure on two different points. First the US tried to exploit Thailand and they got burned. Now, in a move that demonstrates the past

#2: South America at the end of USSR Action Round 4. #3: Asia at the end of US Action Round 5.

Thailand before and after the coup

Page 16: RULE BOOK - WordPress.com · 2016. 10. 24. · and brown lines on the map. Brown lines represent connections within a region. Red dashed lines represent connections between countries

Twilight Struggle —2nd Edition—�6

© 2007 GMT Games, LLC

is prologue, the US coups Venezuela for no effect. There are some very uncomfortable briefings at the White House.

USSR Action Round 4: WaRSaW Pact FoRmed (3 Ops) as Influ-ence points. Adds 1 to Brazil (0/1), Argentina (0/1) and Indonesia (0/1C). See Illustration #2.

The joy in Moscow over American misfortune has Mr. and Mrs. Khrushchev learning to mambo. The Soviets expand their movement in South America and tighten their grip on South East Asia.

US Action Round 4: euRoPe ScoRing (0 Ops). US gains 5 VP, for total of 7.

The player focus on the Midwar shows some impact here. US position in Europe has not really been touched. Stefan is free to grab a quick 5 points with Europe Scoring without much ado from the Soviets.

USSR Action Round 5: tRuman doctRine (1 Op - US) as Influ-ence Points. Adds 1 to Thailand (0/3C).

Chris plays a US event. Ordinarily, Truman Doctrine might have nipped Chris with the Soviet Influence in Yugoslavia. However, that Influence Point was removed earlier for De-Stalinization. So, though the US got the event, it had no effect and was discarded out of the deck.

US Action Round 5: Korean War (2 Ops - USSR) as Influence Points. Adds 2 to South Korea (2/0). See Illustration #3.

Things are getting bad for the US. The Asian scoring card is still out there. If Stefan does not take some risks, it could be a short game. So, he plays Korean War and chances the roll. This time, the “1” roll works in his favor. The North Korean invasion has no effect. The futures of Hyundai and Samsung are secure. Furthermore, the US player uses the occasion to starting build-ing a wall of his own.

USSR Action Round 6: degaulle leadS FRance (3 Ops) as Influence Points. Adds 1 to Afghanistan (0/2C), 2 to Pakistan (0/2C).

Fearing the US player has the Asian scoring card, Chris reacts to Stefan’s Korean gambit by attacking Asia’s soft underbelly—

Pakistan. Furthermore, with Europe Scoring already played, President De Gaulle seems less appealing as an event play.

US Action Round 6: cia cReated (1 Op) as Influence Points. Adds 1 to Jordan (1/0). See Illustration #4.

The US wants to get back into the Middle East. He chooses Jordan as his entry point. Note that Stefan does not use the event. That’s because he wants to keep it in the deck as a potential trap for the Soviet player. Furthermore, CIA Created is the kind of card you want to play at the beginning of the turn to maximize the value of the intelligence garnered.

TURN 2(DEFCON increases to 3, Mil Ops requirements met by both players, no lost points)

Headline PhaseSoviet: Red ScaRe (4 Ops)US: indo-PakiStani WaR (2 Ops)

Red ScaRe/PuRge is a killer card and is almost reflexively played as a headline card if you get your hands on it. Chris does and looks to make turn two equally rough on the Americans. The will now lose 1 operations point from all cards played this turn. Stefan is still watching out for aSian ScoRing. By leading with indo-PakiStani WaR he can potentially make that scoring card something to anticipate rather than dread.

American efforts, however, come up just a bit short. The modi-fiers on indo-PakiStani WaR substract 1 from the die roll for every friendly controlled country adjacent to the target. Stefan gambles big and goes for Pakistan (success would mean 2 VP and swapping Soviet Influence for American). However, Iran and Afghanistan are already in the USSR’s orbit. So, the Americans need to roll a 6. They roll a 5. At least they get two Mil Ops out of the deal.

Action RoundsUSSR Action Round 1: aRaB-iSRaeli WaR (2 Ops) to Coup Panama. Rolls 5, US influ-ence = 0, Soviet Influence 2. Soviets gain 2 Mil Ops, and DEFCON drops to 2.

The Soviet Player keeps his eyes firmly on a Midwar prize. Sensing blood in the water after turn 1, he tries to expand his foothold in Latin America into a power base. That would spell doom for the Americans in the Midwar. The cries of Yanqui go home get louder and louder down south. Additionally, by couping imme-diately and bringing DEFCON down to two, he prevents the US from targeting a battleground country for a coup.

US Action Round 1: Five Year Plan (2 Ops modified) as Influ-ence points. Adds 2 to Saudi Arabia (2/0).

Stefan’s rebuilding effort in the Middle East continues. He knows he’s got avenues back into Latin America, but if he lets Chris #4: The Middle East at the end of US Action Round 6.

Panamabefore the coup

Page 17: RULE BOOK - WordPress.com · 2016. 10. 24. · and brown lines on the map. Brown lines represent connections within a region. Red dashed lines represent connections between countries

Twilight Struggle —2nd Edition— �7

© 2007 GMT Games, LLC

shut him out of the Middle East it could be a problem that lingers the entire game.

USSR Action Round 2: aSia ScoRing (0 Ops). Soviets gain 6 VP, for a total of �. See Illustration #3 again.

Now we see how prescient Stefan’s play for Pakistan was. Had he succeeded the whole tenor of this turn would have shifted. Now board position and victory points are beginning to align for the Soviets.

US Action Round 2: Romanian aBdication (� Op - USSR cannot be modified) as Influence point. Adds 1 to Saudi Arabia (3C/0).

Stefan is trying to make lemonade out of lemons. He gives Chris Romania (0/3C), which does not really upset the balance in Eu-rope. While he earns a battleground country in the Middle East. A fair trade, and at least Red Scare can’t hurt a 1 Op.

#5: Situation after US Action Round #2.

USSR Action Round 3: decolonization (2 Ops) as the Event. Adds 1 to Burma (0/1), Angola (0/1C), Nigeria (0/1C) and Algeria (0/1).

Having already put the American’s in a terrible spot, its time for the Soviets to serve up a dilemma. The American’s are already behind in Latin America, how about adding Africa to their co-nundrum? decolonization is an absolutely vital breakout card for the Soviets, and one you hope to see in your own hand as the Americans.

Chris has played it well here as DEFCON is already at 2. There-fore, he can add influence to African battleground states with weak stability without fearing immediate US counter-coups.

US Action Round 3: SocialiSt goveRnmentS (2 Ops modified - USSR) on the Space Race. Rolls �. Adds 2 VP for a total of 3.

All the big, Early War events have come out and they have all come out for the Soviets. Stefan has withstood a pounding al-ready. At least he gets a little revenge by launching some “fellow travelers” from the Italian parliament into low earth orbit. Since he has used the card to roll on the Space Race track, the Soviet event is not implemented.

USSR Action Round 4: duck and coveR (3 Ops - US) on the Space Race. Rolls 3. Adds � VP for a total of 2.

How do you say, anything you can do, I can do better in Russian? Duck and Cover, because of its DEFCON impact is a dangerous card to be holding when DEFCON is low. Besides the US has put a satellite up, can the Soviets just sit still for that?

US Action Round 4: Independent Reds (1 Op modified) as Influence point. Adds 1 to South Africa (2/0).

In a very quiet way, Stefan is clawing his way back in. He got a little breather himself with the Soviets needing to get duck and coveR out of their hand. He uses his one operation point to crawl towards presence in Africa.

USSR Action Round 5: caPtuRed nazi ScientiStS (� Op) as Influence point. Adds 1 to Lebanon (0/1C).

Chris notes Stefan’s improved position in the Middle East and begins to counter himself. Still, caPtuRed nazi ScientiStS is not a card I like to leave in the deck for my opponent to find later. Stefan’s play obviously had the desired effect.

US Action Round 5: Suez cRiSiS (2 Ops modified - USSR) as Influence points. Adds 2 to France (3C/0).

This is an illustration of how a bad card can be defused by a good player. Suez cRiSiS is used by the Soviet player (Stefan allows him to go first) to remove 2 influence from France (1/0) and 2 from the UK (3/0). Britain is in no immediate threat, so Stefan adds both influence back to France. European balance unchanged, and a threat to France is out of the deck. De Gaulle still lurks, however.

USSR Action Round 6: eaSt euRoPean unReSt (3 Ops - US) as Influence points. Adds 1 to East Germany (0/4C) and 2 to Iraq (0/3C).

Similarly, but without the hindrance of Red ScaRe, Chris uses this card to actually strengthen his hand in the Middle East. He has not really contested Stefan’s Domination of Europe. But he is keenly interested in all that oil! The US knock an Influence point out of Romania (0/2), Poland (0/3C) and East Germany (0/3C). Only the East German point is restored.

US Action Round 6: uS/JaPan mutual deFenSe Pact (3 Ops modified) as Influence points. Adds 2 to France (5/0) and 1 to South Africa (3C/0).

I might have been tempted to play this card as the event under the circumstances. Securing Japan as a battleground for another potential Asian scoring next round seems appealing given the

Page 18: RULE BOOK - WordPress.com · 2016. 10. 24. · and brown lines on the map. Brown lines represent connections within a region. Red dashed lines represent connections between countries

Twilight Struggle —2nd Edition—�8

© 2007 GMT Games, LLC

Red Scare. But taking a 4 Op out of the US deck is never too appealing. In any event, Stefan’s doubling down on France seems prudent with De Gaulle still out there and Europe being the one bright spot on the map for him. He has also successfully established a toehold in Africa.

TURN 3(DEFCON increases to 3, Mil Ops requirements met by both players, no lost points. Deck reshuffled.)

Headline PhaseUS: maRShall Plan (4 Ops)Soviets: decolonization (2 Ops)

Ugh, not only has the Soviet player gotten all his big cards, Chris has nabbed decolonization twice! Nevertheless, MaRShall Plan allows the American’s to lock down their advantage in Europe. Stefan adds 1 to France (6C/0), W. Germany (5C/0), the UK (4/0), Spain (1/0), Greece (1/0), Turkey (1/0) and Benelux (1/0). The Soviets welcome more comrades to the revolution in Algeria (0/2C), Zaire (0/1C), South Africa (3C/1) and Malaysia (1/2).

Action RoundsUSSR Action Round 1: deFectoRS (2 Ops - US ) to Coup Saudi Arabia 32. Rolls 5, US influence = 2, Soviet Influence = 0. Soviets

gain 2 Mil Ops, and DEFCON drops to 2. US gains � VP for a total of 3.

Chris is intent on controlling the tempo of coups—particularly since he controls some vulnerable states in Africa. Using defectoRS on Saudi Arabia was never going to have much of an impact, and it didn’t. However, his African holdings remain safe.

US Action Round 1: uS/JaPan mutual deFenSe Pact (4 Ops) as Influence points. Adds 1 to Saudi Arabia (3C/0), 2 to Egypt (2C/0) and 1 to Greece (2C/0).

Well, holding on to uS/JaPan Mutual defenSe Pact has already payed off with an immediate second use for Stefan. He takes a large stride forward and signals a potential European scoring by snagging Greece—not that Chris can do much about it at this stage. Our Alliance with the Chrysanthemum throne still awaits its turn in the deck.

Furthermore, he takes advantage of Chris’ reflexive first round coup to slide influence into Egypt, further bolstering his chances in the Middle East.

USSR Action Round 2: vietnam RevoltS (2 Ops) as the Event. Adds 2 to Vietnam (0/2C). +� to Ops in SE Asia.

Have we seen some signaling for another scoring card? Maybe

#6: The Situation in Europe at the end of Turn 2.

Saudi Arabiabefore the coup

Page 19: RULE BOOK - WordPress.com · 2016. 10. 24. · and brown lines on the map. Brown lines represent connections within a region. Red dashed lines represent connections between countries

Twilight Struggle —2nd Edition— �9

© 2007 GMT Games, LLC

he should have used the Defense Pact event after all? Perhaps not. Chris is already over the dominance hump for Asia. Getting that last battleground for the US to be competitive seems like a tall order with all the other fires to put out.

US Action Round 2: euRoPe ScoRing (0 Ops). US gains 5 VP, for a total of 8.

No surprises here. That should have been pretty clear with the otherwise unnecessary play into Greece.

USSR Action Round 3: SocialiSt goveRnmentS (3 Ops) as Influence points. Adds 1 to Burma (0/2C), Malaysia (1/3C) and 2 to Laos (0/2C) (including the Vietnam Revolts bonus).

If there was any doubt we were trading euRoPean ScoRing for aSian ScoRing this round, that card play settles it. Of course, timing being everything, there was not a ton of utility in playing the card as the event after euRoPean ScoRing. Chris knows he won’t see euRoPean ScoRing again until the Midwar reshuffle, around the start of turn 7.

Chris’ play in South East Asia improves his position both for aSian ScoRing and also for the Mid War deck’s, South eaSt aSian ScoRing card.

US Action Round 3: olymPic gameS (2 Ops) as Influence points. Adds 2 to Israel (3/0).

Stefan is bound and determined not to let the Middle East fall away. He’s got Europe, he’s lost Asia. Things look pretty grim in Latin America and Africa. If he let’s his position in the Middle East collapse, Chris is a shoe in. So, Israel is now increasingly safe against an aRab-iSRaeli WaR play, and therefore gets some US love.

USSR Action Round 4: aSia ScoRing (0 Ops). USSR gains 6 VP, for a total of 2.

Again, no surprise. Chris telegraphed this move early with the vietnaM RevoltS play. What is surprising is that despite some fine play by Chris and an excellent set of cards, the VP chart has not dipped into Soviet territory—yet.

US Action Round 4: aRaB-iSRaeli WaR (2 Op) as Influence points. Adds � to Israel (4C/0) and 1 to Jordan (2C/0).

Very cleverly defused. Stefan uses the two ops from the card to take advantage of the modifiers on the event. Since he now controls Israel, Egypt and Jordan it is impossible for the Soviet die roll to succeed. Still, the Soviets do collect 2 Mil Ops out of the deal. A very nice tactical play that rendered a Soviet event useless while also improving Stefan’s boots on the ground in the Middle East.

USSR Action Round 5: NATO (4 Ops - US) as Influence points. Adds 1 to Syria (0/2C), Brazil (0/2C) and 2 to Chile (0/3C).

The Soviets trigger NATO, but Europe is hardly his target, or concern, these days. Instead he parries a bit in the Middle East and turns up the heat in South America.

US Action Round 5: un inteRvention (2 Ops) with Blockade (1 Op) as the event. Adds 1 in Libya (1/0).

Ugh, I hate leaving blockade in the deck under any circumstanc-es, but this is obviously better than playing it. Since blockade is a 1 Op, it does not meet the requirements for a Space Race roll. The move over to Libya signals Stefan’s desire to dominate the Middle East, not just play defense. However, naSSeR could make a mess of position in Egypt quite quickly.

#7: The Situation in Europe at the time of Europe Scoring. #8: The Situation in Asia at the time of Asia Scoring.

Page 20: RULE BOOK - WordPress.com · 2016. 10. 24. · and brown lines on the map. Brown lines represent connections within a region. Red dashed lines represent connections between countries

Twilight Struggle —2nd Edition—20

© 2007 GMT Games, LLC

#9: The Situation at the end of Turn 3.

USSR Action Round 6: nucleaR teSt Ban (4 Ops) as Influence points. Adds 1 to Argentina (0/2C) and 3 to Costa Rica (0/3C).

Chris has smartly prepared himself for an immediate domination scoring of Central America. Control is not beyond belief here. If those scoring cards come out early, its going to be several tough turns for Stefan.

US Action Round 6: naSSeR (� Op - USSR) to Coup Costa Rica. Rolls 5. No Effect. US gains � Mil Op.

Ah, speak of the devil, there’s Abdel now causing America pain in the Middle East (and a near miss in Costa Rica.) Note that with such a low Op card versus such a high stability country, the object was not really to impact Costa Rica, but to avoid some of the VP penalty for failing to perform Mil Ops by the end of the round. He cut the penalty in half and lost 1. However, he also had to give up control of Egypt. The Soviets now gain 2 Influence in Egypt (1/2) while US influence is cut in half to 1.

THE END?Well, not really, but you didn’t think I would reveal all the secrets of two of the best players in the game did you? Remarkably, Stefan went on to win this match in final scoring. Somewhere around turn 5 card and dice luck began to flip flop. Suddenly Stefan was on fire, and Chris was pulling a lot of tough American events. Of course, if you play the game right, you leave all those tough events for your opponent to contend with exactly when he can least afford it. Surprising exactly no one, Stefan nabbed yet another Twilight Struggle Tournament title.

I would like to thank both Chris and Stefan for helping us illus-trate how the game can be played and played well. I would also like to thank the Board Game Player’s Association for hosting this tournament and others like it. They are a great service to all gamers. Finally, I would like to express my particularly deep thanks to Randy Pippus. He is an excellent Twilight Struggle player in his own right, and helped Ananda and I immensely by providing a transcript of this final match.

Costa Rica before and after the coup

Page 21: RULE BOOK - WordPress.com · 2016. 10. 24. · and brown lines on the map. Brown lines represent connections within a region. Red dashed lines represent connections between countries

Twilight Struggle —2nd Edition— 2�

© 2007 GMT Games, LLC

ASIA SCORING — While Europe may have been the object of the Cold War, Asia was the battleground. From the Chinese Civil War, to the Korean War to Vietnam and Afghanistan, Asia was the place where the Cold War came closest to growing hot. For this reason, Asia is the second most significant region for scoring.

EUROPE SCORING — Some Cold War historians view the entire struggle, costing millions of lives, untold trillions of dollars, and conflict around the globe, as a struggle for the future of Germany. While that view may be too myopic, it is clear that Europe always remained in the forefront of strategy and emphasis. Defeat in Europe ultimately meant defeat in the Cold War.

MIDEAST SCORING — In �946, Truman had to threaten to send warships to the Mediterranean to compel the Soviets to remove troops from Iran. Thus began the Cold War struggle in the Middle East. Since this region provided Western economies with their life-blood—oil, it also provided the USSR with an irresistible opportunity to meddle. US support for Israel gave the Soviets an opening to the Arab world that they would repeatedly exploit.

DUCK AND COVER — (�950) The US Congress passed into law the Federal Civil Defense Act, in reaction to the first Soviet tests of nuclear weapons in �949. Duck and Cover is perhaps the most memorable of a variety of civil defense efforts to raise awareness of nuclear attack. Ironically, such films may have assisted in increasing the possibility of nuclear war by making the possibility of such a conflict “thinkable” by the general public.

FIVE YEAR PLAN — (�946-�950) Beginning in the �920s, the Soviet Union became obsessed with centralized planning of its economy and industrial development. Twelve such plans were adopted by the USSR during its history. While economists differ, it is largely agreed that these plans caused more dislocation within the Soviet economy than they resolved.

THE CHINA CARD — The People’s Republic of China played a pivotal role during the Cold War. While the PRC’s influence was largely limited to satellites in Asia, the country was important to the uneasy balance of power that ultimately descended upon the post-WWII world. While beginning as an ally of the USSR, China became a counter-balance to Soviet influence in Asia during the later stages of the Cold War.

SOCIALIST GOVERNMENTS — (�947) Beginning with the end of the Second World War, the US was chal-lenged by democratic leftist movements within its sphere. Italy, under de Gasperi, was particularly contentious with com-munists and socialists participating in government. The CIA funded an exten-sive propaganda program against these movements. Socialist governments would be the topic of concern again during the �960s in France, and with left-wing labor

party in the UK.

FIDEL — (�959) Coming to power after deposing the corrupt Batista, Castro disenchanted the US after it became clear he was leading a Marxist revolution. The US tried various schemes to depose or assassinate Castro, culminating in the disastrous “Bay of Pigs” invasion. Ultimately, communist Cuba would lend support to Marxist governments in Angola and Ethiopia.

VIETNAM REVOLTS — (�946) Ho Chi Minh tried repeatedly to enlist the aid of the Truman Administration for independence. His letters never received a response. The French government, with support from the US and Britain, attempted to reestablish its colony in Indochina. The attempted was doomed and would lead to disaster at Dien Bien Phu.

BLOCKADE — (�948-49) The Soviets attempted to increase pressure on the Western allies to dissuade them from creating an independent “West” German government in their zones. The primary pressure point was a blockade of West Berlin. In response, the UK and US launched the Berlin Airlift, which at its peak during the “Eas-ter Parade,” had a cargo plane landing in Berlin every minute.

KOREAN WAR — (�950-53) Sparked by a North Korean inva-sion across the 38th parallel, the Korean War would be the first war sanctioned by the United Nations. There were �5 nations beyond the US and South Korea with combat forces attempting to defend South Korean independence. MacArthur’s campaign to the Yalu River provoked a Chinese response that reset the war to its starting positions on the 38th parallel.

ROMANIAN ABDICATION — (�947) King Michael I, a west-ernized monarch, was forced to abdicate his throne at gunpoint. Romania was thereafter declared a democratic socialist republic. After the death of its first communist leader, Gheorghiu-Dej, Ro-mania was ruled by Nicolae Ceausescu, second only to Stalin in cruelty to his own people.

ARAB-ISRAELI WAR — (�948-49, �956, �967, �968-�970, �973, �982) The State of Israel was virtually born of war. After the end of the British mandate, Israel was thrust into conflict with its Arab neighbors. Israel prevailed in all such wars, excepting its invasion of Lebanon in �982, from which it ultimately had to withdraw. Arab success was nearly achieved during the surprise attacks of the Yom Kippur War, however these too ultimately failed. While superpower

intervention was frequently threatened on both sides, ultimately success or failure in the conflicts rode upon the relative capabilities of Arab and Israeli militaries.

COMECON — (�949-�99�) The Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (COMECON) was founded in reaction to the allure of the Marshall Plan to the Soviet satellites in Eastern Europe. While very loosely organized and dominated by the Soviets in its early years, COMECON would ultimately fulfill the role of trade liberalization and industrial rationalization for Eastern Europe.

Card HistoriesCard Histories

Page 22: RULE BOOK - WordPress.com · 2016. 10. 24. · and brown lines on the map. Brown lines represent connections within a region. Red dashed lines represent connections between countries

Twilight Struggle —2nd Edition—22

© 2007 GMT Games, LLC

NASSER — (�954-�970) One of the giants in the Pan-Arab move-ment, Gamal Abdel Nasser rose to power through military coup. Attempting to steer an independent course during the Cold War, he provoked western governments by accepting Soviet aid, and nationalizing commercial property—the Suez Canal being the most prominent example. Egypt, under his leadership, was viewed as a Soviet client, and would serve as a Russian proxy during repeated wars with Israel. He died in office after 18 years of service, having frustrated the attempts of a variety of domestic and international enemies.

WARSAW PACT FORMED — (�955) A reaction to perceived Western aggression by the creation of NATO, the Warsaw Pact was a Russian-dominated military alliance that included all of the states of Eastern Europe except Yugoslavia. It integrated both tactics and equipment throughout the alliance along Soviet models. Albania withdrew from the Pact in �968.

DE GAULLE LEADS FRANCE — (�958 – �969) Founder of France’s Fifth Republic, De Gaulle’s role during the Cold War is generally viewed through the lens of his second presidency. While still a western ally, De Gaulle attempted to establish France as an independent voice within the confines of the western camp. He developed an independent nuclear deterrent, withdrew from NATO’s unified command structure, and criticized US policy in Vietnam. He also pursued

increased trade and cultural relations with the Soviet Bloc. He sought in all things to restore France to her former place of greatness in world affairs.

CAPTURED NAZI SCIENTISTS — (�945-�973) Code named “Project Paperclip” in the United States, the victors of World War II scrambled to “recruit” former Nazi scientists into their own research establishments. In the West, such efforts involved shielding scien-tists from war crime investigations. Perhaps the most famous case is Wernher von Braun who is thought of as the father of America’s rocketry program. Stalin was reportedly confounded by Soviet failure to grab this knowledge base first.

TRUMAN DOCTRINE — (�947) Before a joint session of Congress, the President announced the new Truman Doctrine, ushering in an era of intense intervention on behalf of states with lib-eral economic and political institutions. Truman stated “I believe that it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.” The Truman Doctrine was prompted by the United Kingdom’s

withdrawal from its traditional great power role in the Near East. The immediate effect of the doctrine was a massive influx of military and economic aid to Greece and Turkey.

OLYMPIC GAMES — (�948, �952, �956, �960, �964, �968, �972, �976, �980, �984, �988) Sport often served as an outlet for the intense competition between the Superpowers, and that competition was never so intense as at the Olympics. The Olympics served as a test bed to see which society could make the greatest strides in hu-

man physical achievement. It fit neatly into Communist ideology of “the New Man.” The games frequently reflected the global political situation, as with the terrorist attacks in Munich, and became overt political tools with the US boycott of the Moscow games in �980, and the Soviet boycott of the LA games in �984.

NATO — (�949) The second part of the US strategy to rebuild Europe, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) became synonymous with the West’s opposition to the Soviet Union. An oft repeated maxim for NATO’s purpose captures it nicely: “NATO was created to keep the Soviets out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.”

INDEPENDENT REDS — (�948) The Communist Information Bureau, COMINFORM, expelled Yugoslavia for Marshall Tito’s refusal to conform to Moscow’s wishes. Albania would ultimately follow a similar tack, breaking with Yugoslavia, then Khrushchev’s USSR. While remaining within the Soviet structure, Ceausescu’s Romania would also test the limits of Moscow’s patience with oc-casional flares of independence and nationalism.

MARSHALL PLAN — (�947) On June 5, Secretary of State George C. Marshall announced to the world the US plan to reconstruct all of Europe. Due to Soviet pressure, Eastern European states did not participate. However, for the �6 nations of Western Europe that did, the Marshall Plan marked the first step on the road to recovery and ultimate victory in the Cold War.

INDO-PAKISTANI WAR — (�947-48, �965, �97�) From the time of India’s independence from Britain, the Muslim and Hindu elements of this former colony have been in conflict. Pakistan has traditionally been on the losing end of these conflicts, but has relied on US and PRC support to maintain military credibility against a more robust Indian defense capability.

CONTAINMENT — (�947) A term coined by diplomat and So-vietologist, George Kennan, it came to form the cornerstone of US policy toward the Soviet Union during the early Cold War. It found early application in the Truman Doctrine and sought to “contain” Communism to those areas where it already existed.

CIA CREATED — (�947) In an effort to bring to a close the in-ter-service bickering that marred U.S. intelligence during WWII, President Truman created the United States’ first independent agency capable both of intelligence analysis and covert operations. Its 40 year cat-and-mouse game with its Soviet counterpart, the KGB, would be the stuff of legend, and one of the hallmarks of the Cold War.

US/JAPAN MUTUAL DEFENSE PACT — (�95�) On September 8th the United States quietly extended its nuclear umbrella to its former Pacific rival. In doing so, it also soothed the nerves of Japan’s neighbors about a remilitarized Japan appearing on the world scene. In exchange, Japan played host to America’s forward presence in Asia. Japan ef-fectively became an unsinkable aircraft carrier for both the Vietnam and Korean wars. Obviously, US reliance on Japanese

products during the ensuing conflicts greatly aided Japan’s economic recovery and eventual economic might.

Page 23: RULE BOOK - WordPress.com · 2016. 10. 24. · and brown lines on the map. Brown lines represent connections within a region. Red dashed lines represent connections between countries

Twilight Struggle —2nd Edition— 23

© 2007 GMT Games, LLC

SUEZ CRISIS — (�956) An embarrassment among allies, the Suez Crisis ended any remaining doubt that the old system of Great Power imperialism was dead. Threatened by Nasser’s nationalization of the Suez Canal, Israel, France and the United Kingdom conspired to alter Egyptian policy at bayonet point. They failed to appreciate Eisenhower’s aggravation at their unannounced initiative. Though initially militarily successful, the three powers were compelled to withdraw under American pressure.

EAST EUROPEAN UNREST — (�956 – �989) Captured most visibly by Nagy’s attempt to withdraw Hungary from the Warsaw Pact and Czechoslovakia’s Prague Spring of �968, members of the Warsaw Pact frequently sought to loosen the reins of Moscow. When taken too far, from the Soviet perspective, the ef-fects could be devastating. Soviet tanks became a universal symbol of Soviet determination to hold on to Eastern Eu-rope, through undisguised oppression

if necessary.

DECOLONIZATION — (�947 – �979) While it is hard to put pre-cise dates on the decolonization process, those dates chosen represent two of the most significant decolonization successes. Sparking the retreat from empire was Britain’s fulfilled promise of independence for India in 1947. At the other extreme, Rhodesia’s first majority elections spelled doom for the apartheid system.

RED SCARE/PURGE — (�945 – �989) Sparked by fears that the “enemy is among us,” the “red scare” hit its apex with Senator Joseph McCarthy, and the hearings on “Un-American activities” in the House of Representatives during the �950s. Soviet purges were a notorious aspect of power transition within the Kremlin. However, Stalin was the true master; �2 million people were imprisoned in his camps at the time of his death in �953.

UN INTERVENTION — (�947 – ?) The United Nations remained generally unable to influence the struggle between the superpowers due to Security Council veto power throughout the Cold War. However, it occasionally stood as a gauge for world opinion, and could mediate in stalled conflicts throughout the Third World. It was also the backdrop for a number of quintessential moments of the conflict, including the Soviet Korean War walkout, the “We Will Bury You”

speech, and of course, the Cuban Missile Crisis—don’t wait for the translation Mr. Zorin!

DE-STALINIZATION — (�956) During the 20th Party Congress, Nikita Khrushchev openly attacked Stalin’s leadership of the Soviet Union. It was seen both inside and outside the Soviet Union as the beginning of a new era. This proved to be a particularly bloody assumption for Nagy’s Hungary. Khrushchev had no intention of “liberalizing” Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, even if he was trying to bring an end to the cult of personality that had character-ized internal Soviet government.

NUCLEAR TEST BAN — (1963 – ?) The first Nuclear Test Ban treaty owes its origins to the de-escalation process that followed

the Cuban Missile Crisis. It prohibited further nuclear tests in the air, underwater or in space. International pressure for such a ban mounted in the 1950s as scientific evidence began to document severe environmental damage caused by earlier atmospheric testing by the nuclear powers. Underground testing remained an allowable methodology, but all forms of “peaceful nuclear explosions” were also banned, tightening the non-proliferation regime.

SOUTH AMERICAN SCORING — The regional penchant to turn to strong men or military juntas to resolve questions of instability made South America ripe for leftist reaction throughout the Cold War. Rising nationalism and the world-wide wave of anti-imperialist sentiment also characterized the relationship with the United States and the nations of South America. The Soviets sought to exploit any openings offered, and established close relations with nations like Argentina. The greatest potential realignment in the region was squashed by an allegedly CIA-instigated coup of Chile’s Salvador Allende.

BRUSH WAR — (�947 – ?) Also characterized as low intensity conflicts, brush wars tended to begin in reaction to local conditions either within a state or between states. However, due to duration, or superpower intervention, an essentially local dispute could be elevated to superpower conflict. Examples include the civil war in Mozambique and the war between Ethiopia and Somalia.

CENTRAL AMERICAN SCORING — Central America and the Caribbean were frequently termed America’s “backyard” and “lake.” With the advent of Fidel Castro in the �959, Americans could no longer take the region for granted. The US reaction to communist influence in the area provoked direct US military intervention in the Dominican Republic (�965) and Grenada (�983). In the closing years of the Cold War, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Honduras, became frontline states in the struggle between the superpowers.

SOUTHEAST ASIA SCORING — In Southeast Asia the process of decolonization intertwined with superpower rivalry in particu-larly deadly ways. Beginning with the British counter-insurgency in Malaya, to the US wars in Vietnam and Cambodia, and ending in �979 with the Sino-Vietnamese war, Southeast Asia would command American attention like no other region. However, after America’s humiliating withdrawal from the region, it would cease to play a central role in Cold War politics.

ARMS RACE — (�947 –�989) The arms race between the Soviet Union and the United States was at play throughout the Cold War, and many attribute the Soviet Union’s collapse to an inability to sustain the final arms race instigated by Ronald Reagan. This element of competition between the nations involved both nuclear and conventional weapons. Frequently, there was an interplay between the two kinds of forces. During the early Cold War, the United States (having rapidly

demobilized after World War II) had to rely on its nuclear weapons in a doctrine of “massive retaliation” to counter Soviet preponder-ance in conventional weapons. After the Soviets developed nuclear weapons of their own, both powers reverted to a system of flexible response. Underlying nuclear strategy throughout this later era was the concept of mutually assured destruction. This reality made the likelihood of direct superpower conventional warfare unlikely. How-

Page 24: RULE BOOK - WordPress.com · 2016. 10. 24. · and brown lines on the map. Brown lines represent connections within a region. Red dashed lines represent connections between countries

Twilight Struggle —2nd Edition—24

© 2007 GMT Games, LLC

ever, the dynamic of conventional weapons competition had its own paradigm. There, the West relied on superior technology to design higher performing weapons to compete against the massive numbers that could be generated by the Soviets’ command economy.

CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS — (�962) The mere mention of this event elicits fears of the nuclear holocaust that almost was. For �4 days in October �962, the two superpowers seemed destined to clash directly about the Soviet emplace-ment of Medium Range Ballistic Mis-siles (MRBMs) and Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles (IRBMs) in Cuba. To prevent the installation of additional of-fensive weapons in Cuba, John F. Ken-nedy declared a naval quarantine around

Cuba. Tensions reached a near breaking point when a U-2 flight was shot down over Cuba, and Khruschev demanded US missiles be removed from Turkey in exchange for Soviet missiles being removal from Cuba. Ultimately, Khrushchev was compelled to settle for a US pledge not to invade Cuba, and a private agreement to resolve NATO’s missile bases in Turkey.

NUCLEAR SUBS — (1955) The United States launched the first nuclear powered submarine. It instantly antiquated decades of anti-submarine warfare that had developed during the Second World War. Admiral Hyman Rickover was to oversee the development of a new nuclear navy, and create a third, and seemingly invulnerable arm, in the American nuclear triad. Ultimately, the Soviets would follow suit.

QUAGMIRE — (�964 – �975) It is hard to put a precise date on when US involve-ment in Vietnam ceased to be support for an anti-communist counter-insurgency and became instead an inextricable quag-mire. However, Congressional passage of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution seems like as good a point as any. With hindsight, it is clear that the United States confused the very nature of the conflict that they were fighting. Vietnam was fundamentally a war of national liberation—a struggle that

had begun centuries before against Chinese dominance, then French, then Japanese and finally the United States. While the American government may have never realized that they had fallen into the role of “foreign oppressor,” that fact did not diminish Vietnamese resistance. Like most colonial wars, it came down to a calculus of cost. US interests were simply not worth the costs in national morale, military manpower and economic resources that Vietnam was consuming. But humbling a superpower is a long process, and so it was in Vietnam.

SALT NEGOTIATIONS — (�969, �972) Initiated during the Johnson Administration, and completed by President Nixon and Sec-retary Brezhnev, the first Strategic Arms Limitations Talks (SALT) treaty essentially sought to limit the number of nuclear platforms, and restrict defensive systems that threatened the system of mutual deterrence. The success of this treaty led to the initiation of a second round of negotiations or SALT II. The diplomatic wrangling over this treaty began under President Nixon, and was completed in �979

by President Carter and Secretary Brezhnev. SALT II provided broad limits on new strategic weapons platforms and banned mobile ICBMs. Owing to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the treaty was never ratified. President Reagan asserted that the Soviets were not complying with the terms of SALT II in �986 and withdrew from the treaty.

BEAR TRAP — (�979 – �992) In an era of seemingly increasing Soviet hubris, the USSR reverted to old patterns of power politics by meddling in the affairs of Afghanistan—the battleground country in the “Great Game” rivalry between imperialist Russia and Victorian Britain. The Soviets considered Afghanistan part of their natural sphere of influence. However, when Soviet troops directly intervened in an Afghan power struggle and deposed the existing president, they

greatly miscalculated the reaction of world opinion. Smarting from defeat in Vietnam by seemingly inferior forces, the Reagan Ad-ministration sought to make Afghanistan into an equal nightmare. Over a ten year period, the United States provided over $2 billion in assistance to the Islamic resistance or mujahideen in Afghanistan.

SUMMIT — (�959, �96�, �972, �973, �974, �979, �985, �986, �987, �988, �989) Summits between the leadership of the superpow-ers became major implements of public diplomacy from the mid to late Cold War. Success was measured in terms of agenda items secured, treaties signed, and who was tougher on whom. As in an international boxing match, non-aligned countries watched from the sidelines trying to discern which power was in the ascendant. Virtually all major arms control agreements were either initiated or concluded at a summit. In that sense, they were an important tool for sizing up relative intentions, and ensuring the Cold War did not become hot.

HOW I LEARNED TO STOP WORRYING — (�964) As the reality of nuclear holocaust became accepted by the public, fatalism about its inevitability also took hold. The landmark black comedy, Dr. Strangelove, captured this new mood. However, such attitudes are hardly unique. Similar fatalism about mankind’s ultimate destiny can be found throughout literature of the time and sparked a whole sub-genre of science fiction, the post-nuclear-holocaust dime novel filled with atomic mutants and vague remnants of contemporary civilization. Ironically, the pessimism that is reflected in these works may have aided the possibility of nuclear war by making such an act “thinkable.”

JUNTA — (�945 – ?) In Spanish, the term Junta means “coming together.” In a Cold War context, it normally refers to the coming together of right wing military cliques to oust an existing government and replace it with a military dictatorship. Juntas were so common in Latin America throughout the period that they became a nearly ritualized affair. More frequently than not, military juntas enjoyed the tacit blessing of the U.S. government as they looked to check leftist elements in Central and South America. Notable juntas include the military dictatorships that ruled Argentina from �976 to �983 and Guatemala from �954 to �984.

Page 25: RULE BOOK - WordPress.com · 2016. 10. 24. · and brown lines on the map. Brown lines represent connections within a region. Red dashed lines represent connections between countries

Twilight Struggle —2nd Edition— 25

© 2007 GMT Games, LLC

KITCHEN DEBATES — (�959) Dur-ing a time of increased tensions following the successful launch of Sputnik, then Vice President Richard Nixon took a good-will trip to Russia. What followed was a sometimes playful, sometimes pointed public exchange between Nixon and Nikita Khrushchev throughout his stay in Moscow. The exchange is known as the Kitchen Debate, for a particularly sharp exchange in front of a US model home’s display of a GE electric kitchen.

Nixon furthered his domestic political ambitions with a seeming jab at Khrushchev’s chest, reaffirming his anti-communist credentials at home.

MISSILE ENVY — (�984) A term coined by Dr. Helen Caldicott, it reflects the general feminist critique that the Cold War was driven by male ego with very Freudian undercurrents. When one examines the terminology of “deep penetration” and “multiple reentry” one wonders if she had a point. Caldicott went on to found Physicians for Social Responsibility, and her book became a rallying point within the anti-nuclear movement.

“WE WILL BURY YOU” — (�956) Perhaps the most famous quote of the entire Cold War, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev uttered this immortal line while addressing Western ambassadors at a reception in Moscow. With these words Khrushchev announced a period during which he would probe the West for weakness and opportunity. The Berlin Crisis exemplified this expansionist policy.

BREZHNEV DOCTRINE — (�968) Announced to a crowd of Polish workers by Brezhnev himself, the Brezhnev Doctrine clarified the de facto policy of the Soviet Union, the Prague Spring. Namely, current socialist countries would not be allowed to abandon social-ism or adopt a position of neutrality. The doctrine contributed to the Soviets’ miscalculation of world reaction to their invasion of Afghanistan. They looked upon the invasion as the mere application of this well-understood doctrine.

PORTUGUESE EMPIRE CRUMBLES — (�974) Portugal was the last European power to abandon her major colonial possessions in Africa. While admitted to NATO, Portugal was ruled by dictator-ship under Antonio Salazar, who felt that colonial possessions would preserve Portugal’s place in the community of nations. Nevertheless, the repression of nationalist insurgencies brought criticism both from newly independent nations, as well as Portugal’s NATO allies. Finally, with a democratic government in place, Portugal renounced its claims. Shortly thereafter, Portugal’s former colonies of Angola and Mozambique descended into civil war and became major flash points for East and West on the continent of Africa.

SOUTH AFRICAN UNREST — (�964 – �994) The racist, mi-nority government of South Africa began to be challenged by the African National Congress with Soviet and Cuban assistance from bases in Tanzania and Zambia and other “front-line” states. The era of peaceful resistance formally ended with the massacres in Sharpeville and Langa. For its part, South Africa sought to desta-bilize its neighbors, and undertook an invasion of Namibia, while also supporting UNITA in Angola and FRELIMO in Mozambique. However, increasing black population, more powerful black trade unions, and hostility from other western nations eventually placed South Africa on the defensive. While the Reagan Administration pursued a policy of “constructive engagement” with the Apartheid

government, it remained a controversial proposition. Ultimately, the collapse of the eastern bloc made P.W. Botha’s release of Nelson Mandela inevitable.

ALLENDE — (�970 – �973) A physician, Salvador Allende was popularly elected in Chile to lead that nation’s first socialist government. Allende moved quickly to socialize copper produc-tion—Chile’s largest export commodity. The mines were largely held by two US companies, Kennecott and Anaconda. Relations with the US soon turned frosty, and the CIA supported an attempted coup in �970. It failed. However, as the West applied harsh economic sanc-tions, the Allende regime floundered in its second and third years. In �973, the military, lead by Augusto Pinochet, deposed Allende with a bloody assault on the presidential palace. Allende took his own life.

WILLY BRANDT — (�969) An ardent socialist and opponent of the Nazi party during his youth, Willy Brandt led the West German Socialist Democratic party to the Chancellorship in �969. There he implemented the same pragmatic approach to east-west linkages that had characterized his mayorship of West Berlin. Termed Ostpolitik, under Brandt, West Germany normalized relations with the Soviet Union, Poland and Czechoslovakia. While not abandoning the no-tion of German reunification, he acknowledged the inviolability of existing borders and went on to normalize relations with East Germany. Ultimately, his government was brought down by an internal spy scandal.

MUSLIM REVOLUTION — (�979) As secular Arab and Muslim states through-out the Middle East displayed corruption, repression and incompetence, more radical forms of Islam began to come to the fore. The Muslim Brotherhood, founded in Egypt, sought to topple the secular regime there and in Syria. This led to further cycles of repression and authoritarian rule within these coun-tries. A similar cycle took place in Iran under Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi.

A long standing regional ally of the United States, and the West generally, the Shah was deposed by a popular revolution led by the anti-western Ayatollah Khomeini. This ushered in the world’s first contemporary theocracy. Iran’s Mullahs would spend the rest of the 20th Century in efforts to export their revolution to other Shia Muslim communities.

ABM TREATY — (�972) The Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty sought to cement the system of mutually assured destruction as the lynchpin of strategic balance. The ABM treaty restricted the ability of the two superpowers to defend themselves from nuclear strike. In theory, this made a first strike to prevent the introduction of destabilizing defensive systems unnecessary. Both nations were allowed to defend either their capital or one field of ICBMs with a missile defense system. The Soviets deployed such a system around Moscow. Ultimately, the US abandoned its system deployed in Grand Forks, North Dakota.

CULTURAL REVOLUTION — (�966 – �977) While primarily representative of an internal power struggle within the People’s Republic of China, the Cultural Revolution had profound interna-tional implications. As Mao Zedong felt increasingly marginalized by moderates within the Chinese Communist party, he lashed out to restore ideological purity and train the next generation of revolution-

Page 26: RULE BOOK - WordPress.com · 2016. 10. 24. · and brown lines on the map. Brown lines represent connections within a region. Red dashed lines represent connections between countries

Twilight Struggle —2nd Edition—26

© 2007 GMT Games, LLC

aries. The resulting turmoil of purges, denunciations, and creation of the Red Guard brought China to the brink of civil war. It also made more pronounced, the rupture between China and the Soviet Union. However, the anarchy and isolationism that reigned made rapprochement between the United States and the PRC impossible. As the Nixon administration took office, the gulf between the two nations appeared wider than ever.

FLOWER POWER — (�965 – �970) A term reportedly coined by the poet Allen Ginsberg, “flower power” came to represent the non-violence and peace movements of the �960s. The classical context for the phrase was the placement of daisies into rifle muzzles, and the anti-war slogan “make love, not war.” Flower power is also representative of the general ambivalence to the use of military force that resulted from the American experience in Vietnam.

U-2 INCIDENT — (�960) Starting in �955, the United States began running surveillance flights over the Soviet Union at altitudes beyond Soviet anti-aircraft ranges. However, in May of �960, a Soviet Sam II missile struck Francis Gary Powers’ aircraft in Soviet airspace. Plane, pilot and gear were captured by the USSR. The incident proved a major embarrassment to the Eisenhower ad-ministration, as they initially denied that the US was running such missions. The

successful downing of the U-2 caused a major chill in superpower relations and was a propaganda coup for the Soviet Union.

OPEC — (�960) Founded to allow oil producing countries to have more control over the price of oil, and thereby state rev-enues, OPEC has grown into an institution that controls two-thirds of the world’s oil reserves and generates roughly half of the world’s oil exports. The creation of OPEC was a major blow to the control of the global oil market by the Western giants like Exxon and British Petroleum. While OPEC does include non-Middle Eastern countries such as Venezuela, Indonesia and Nigeria,

it is heavily dominated by countries from that region. As a result, OPEC has intervened in the political crises there. Most famously, OPEC refused oil exports to Western countries supporting Israel in the Yom Kippur (or October) War. This resulted in a 400% increase in oil prices and required rationing in the West.

“LONE GUNMAN” — (�963) While campaigning in Dallas, Texas, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald. Two commissions, the Warren Commission, and the House Select Committee on Assassinations, differed over whether or not Oswald acted alone. In any case, the circumstances of the President’s death threw the country into a panic and created ample opportunity for conspiracy theories ranging from the Mafia, the Cuban government, the KGB and America’s own CIA. It also marked the beginning of a string of high profile political assassinations in the United States that would include Dr. Martin Luther King and John Kennedy’s brother (and Democratic Presidential candidate) Robert Kennedy. These untimely deaths shook American confidence and added to the malaise of the Vietnam era.

COLONIAL REARGUARDS — (�946 – �988) The Cold War was instigated in the context of an evolving international system. As the world relinquished a multi-polar system comprised of poly-glot empires, it replaced it with a bi-polar system dominated by continental nation states. Anti-colonial movements tended to have strong anti-western sentiments, as the foremost colonial powers were now in the western camp. However, the drive to independence was not uniform, nor uniformly successful. Several long rear-guard actions were fought by the colonial powers that either lengthened their stay or maintained a quasi-colonial relationship with the newly independent country. British intervention in Malaya (�948), the French resistance to Algerian independence (�954) and South African intransigence in Namibia (�966) all serve as examples of this aspect of the post colonial experience.

PANAMA CANAL RETURNED — (�970) Though widely criti-cized by the right domestically, the Carter administration’s decision to turn over the Panama Canal to Panama proved immensely popular with Latin America. The Canal was a vital strategic link for the United States navy both during the First and Second World Wars. However, by the time of the Korean War, the canal was no longer large enough to accommodate contemporary warships. With its utility to the U.S. military greatly diminished, while its propaganda value as a relic of American imperialism still on the rise, Carter realized that gradual hand-over of the canal was the best policy alternative.

CAMP DAVID ACCORDS — (�978) Following a lull in the Middle East peace process caused by the �976 presidential elections, President Carter entered office with a burst of new energy on the subject. Through direct personal appeal, Carter was able to bring ultimate resolution to the Yom Kippur War and completely change the dynamic of the Middle East-ern question. Israel and Egypt normalized relations and a framework for Middle East peace was agreed to. Years later, this

would allow for the Oslo accord, and the Jordanian–Israeli Peace Agreement. Additionally, Carter also secured the complete realign-ment of Egypt. Once a Nasser led hotbed of anti-Western feeling, Egypt was to become one of America’s foremost allies in the region. Sadat would pay dearly for the leadership he showed during the talks. He was assassinated by Islamic radicals in �98�.

PUPPET GOVERNMENTS — (�949 – ?) Not a concept unique to the Cold War, the term “puppet governments” refers to a regime that holds power due to, and with the support of, either the Soviet Union or the United States. A derisive term, it is almost always used by the opponents of a state to undermine the government’s legitimacy. Both the Soviets and the Americans would apply the term to any closely allied state, but it might be better understood in the context of the Diem government in South Vietnam or Mariam government of Ethiopia.

GRAIN SALES TO SOVIETS — (�973 –�980, �98� – ?) In �973, difficult climatic circumstances and dramatic crop failures prompted President Nixon to allow for massive grain sales to the Soviet Union. While a blow to Russian pride, the program was nevertheless a step towards normalized relations between the superpowers. Additionally, it provided an enduring domestic lobby to pressure for continued

Page 27: RULE BOOK - WordPress.com · 2016. 10. 24. · and brown lines on the map. Brown lines represent connections within a region. Red dashed lines represent connections between countries

Twilight Struggle —2nd Edition— 27

© 2007 GMT Games, LLC

thawing in economic relations between the two countries. In �980, President Carter suspended the program in retaliation for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Shipments were resumed a year later under President Reagan. This culminated in a treaty with the Soviets, with the Soviets promising to buy 9 million tons of US grains per year.

JOHN PAUL II ELECTED POPE — (1978) The first non-Italian to be elected Pope since the �6th Century, Pope John Paul II repre-sented a rejuvenation of Catholic influence upon the world stage. The United States gave formal diplomatic recognition to the Papacy for the first time in its history. As a Pope elected from communist Poland, John Paul II presented an enormous challenge for Poland’s leadership. To criticize the new papacy would only alienate the public, to embrace it would be antithetical to communist doctrine. Furthermore, John Paul II was known to be an ardent critic of com-munism. John Paul’s election marked a turning point in internal Polish political dynamics that would culminate in the Solidarity movement. Mikhail Gorbachev remarked that the fall of the iron curtain would have been impossible without John Paul II.

LATIN AMERICAN DEATH SQUADS — (�960 – �989) Throughout the Cold War, both left and rightwing governments supported reactionary regimes that resorted to disproportionate force when reacting to threats to that government. While this was a particular penchant of rightwing governments in Latin America, leftist governments also proved their deft use of brutality. El Salva-dor, Guatemala, and Columbia remain the most harrowing examples of the practice of government sponsored murder. President Osorio of Guatemala once infamously remarked “If it is necessary to turn the country into a graveyard in order to pacify it, I will not hesitate to do so.”

OAS FOUNDED — (�948, �967) Founded with the specific aim of promot-ing democracy in the western hemisphere, the OAS has been an occasionally useful body for the promotion of US interests within the hemisphere. It provided inter-national legitimacy for US actions during both the Cuban Missile Crisis and the US invasion of Grenada. Trade promotion and economic development were added to the OAS charter in Buenos Aires in �967. The revision of the charter also

established the existence of permanent OAS diplomatic venues with the creation of a General Assembly in Washington, DC.

NIXON PLAYS THE CHINA CARD — (�972) Realizing that normalization of relations with China was key for US withdrawal from South Vietnam, Nixon sought a summit between himself and Mao. Nixon dispatched Henry Kissinger to secret talks with the PRC’s foreign minister Chou En-lai to lay the groundwork for the visit. Capitalizing on deteriorating Sino-Soviet relations, Nixon scored perhaps the greatest diplomatic coup of the Cold War. The Shanghai Communique that followed the summit danced around several fundamental disagreements between the two countries, in-cluding Taiwan and Vietnam. However, it was clear that the Soviet Union could no longer depend upon Chinese support in regional conflicts. While Nixon expressed his desire to fully normalize re-lations between the two countries quickly, Watergate interrupted these plans. It would fall to Jimmy Carter to restore full diplomatic relations between the two countries.

SADAT EXPELS SOVIETS — (�972) Anwar Sadat was an early participant in anti-colonial activities against the British-sponsored Egyptian monarchy. He became vice president under Nasser, and inherited a deteriorating relationship with the USSR when he transitioned into the presidency. The Soviets refused Egyptian de-mands for increased economic and military aid, and the Egyptians were trying hard to keep a foot in both camps. In reaction, Sadat expelled the 5,000 Soviet military advisors and �5,000 air force personnel in Egypt. After the brokered Mideast peace following �973 war, Sadat became convinced of the need for closer relations with Washington.

SHUTTLE DIPLOMACY — (�973) Personalized diplomacy that uses advances in transportation and communications, Shuttle Diplomacy was a hallmark of Henry Kissinger’s term as Secretary of State. Most famously, it was utilized to broker a cease-fire between Israel and Egypt after the Yom Kippur War. By acting as personal go-between for the Egyptians and Israelis, Kissinger maintained the pivotal role in discussions and minimized Soviet influence over the negotiation process. Kissinger utilized a similar style when dealing with the normalization of relations between the United States and the People’s Republic of China.

THE VOICE OF AMERICA — (�947) Formed in �942 under the War Informa-tion Office, the VOA initially broadcast war news into Nazi occupied Europe. In �947, it altered its mission to begin broadcasting into the Soviet Union. Voice of America has become one of the best known international broadcast efforts in the world. It provided a powerful outside link to the state-controlled media systems of the Eastern Bloc. Together with Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia, Voice

of America became a hallmark of US public diplomacy efforts dur-ing the Cold War.

LIBERATION THEOLOGY — (�969 – ?) An outgrowth of the Second Vatican Council, liberation theology stresses Jesus Christ as liberator. The theological strain that sustained this outlook origi-nated in Latin America and flourished there, particularly with the Jesuit order. While never embraced by Pope John Paul II due to its Marxist undercurrents, liberation theology remains very popular with individual priests and the laity in the third world. Its emphasis on social justice and its critique of capitalist excess has, however, been incorporated into broader Church doctrine.

USSURI RIVER SKIRMISH — (�969) After years of deteriorat-ing relations and China’s first nuclear test, forces of the People’s Republic of China and the Soviet Union clashed along their long and porous border. The Ussuri and Amur Rivers’ possession remained uncertain between the two nations and were a source of friction. Following a military buildup on both sides of the border, tensions spilled over into a several sharp skirmishes. While full-blown war was avoided, the fighting led directly to the People’s Republic of China’s interest in rapidly normalizing relations with the United States.

“ASK NOT WHAT YOUR COUNTRY CAN DO FOR YOU . . .” — (�96�) The seminal line of perhaps the most powerful inaugural address ever given by a US president, President Kennedy ushered in an era of American confidence and resolve during the Cold War. Popular with American youth, Kennedy inspired a renewed dedica-

Page 28: RULE BOOK - WordPress.com · 2016. 10. 24. · and brown lines on the map. Brown lines represent connections within a region. Red dashed lines represent connections between countries

Twilight Struggle —2nd Edition—28

© 2007 GMT Games, LLC

tion for public service both with ambitious goals for government sponsored science and youth oriented public service like the Peace Corps. His call for selfless dedication to the needs of the nation reflected the passion of a restless generation of young Americans eager to make their mark upon the world.

ALLIANCE FOR PROGRESS — (�96� – �973) Initiated by President Kennedy as a counter for growing Cuban influence in Central and South America, the Alliance for Progress was to help integrate the economies of North and Latin America. Emphases for the program included land reform, democratic reform and tax reform. By the late 60’s the United States had become fully embroiled in Vietnam and South Asia, thus aid for Latin America waned. Furthermore, few Latin American countries proved willing to undertake the required reforms. As a result, the Organization of American States disbanded its “permanent” Alliance for Progress Committee in �973.

AFRICA SCORING — African history throughout the Cold War reflects the promise and tragedy that go hand in hand with that continent’s experience. At first buoyed by the political success of rapid decolonization, the jubilation would devolve into cynicism. One after another, newly independent governments would give way to “presidents for life,” political corruption, economic chaos and ethnic violence. Lacking resources, African governments quickly took advantage of the superpower rivalry to maximize economic and military support for their regimes. In the post-colonial era, a variety of proxy civil wars were fought on the continent. Angola, Mozambique, Chad and Ethiopia were but a few of the nations that experienced violence theoretically in the name of the global struggle between communism and capitalism.

“ONE SMALL STEP . . .” — (�96� – �969) After years of lagging behind So-viet space exploits, the United States put its full intellectual and economic weight behind the “race to the moon”. President Kennedy initiated Project Mercury. Ul-timately, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration would overcome enormous technological hurdles to place a man on the moon. As Neil Armstrong, the first human to set foot upon the moon’s surface, descended from the space craft, he uttered the immortal line “one small

step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.” In so doing, he con-firmed an American come-back victory in the space race between the superpowers.

SOLIDARITY — (�980 – ?) A trade union movement originating in the Polish shipyards of Gdansk, Solidarity became the focal point for anti-communist resistance within the Eastern bloc. Solidarity quickly moved beyond a simple worker’s movement and rallied pro-Catholic, intellectuals and other social dissidents to its banner. Its toleration within a Warsaw Pact nation was unprecedented, and involved a cat and mouse game heavily reliant on public scrutiny of Soviet intentions, the prestige of the Polish Pope, John Paul II, and the political courage of its leader Lech Walesa. While Poland’s com-munist led government under Wojciech Jaruzelski did crack down on Solidarity and imprison much of its leadership, the organization went underground and began to regrow. By �988, Solidarity led strikes had forced the Polish Communists into open negotiations.

IRANIAN HOSTAGE CRISIS — (�979 – �98�) A violent reaction to traditional US support for the repressive regime of the Shah of Iran, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, 65 Americans were held for 444 days after Islamic revolutionaries stormed the US embassy. The newly installed leader of the Iran’s theocracy, Ayatollah Khomeini, was rabidly anti-American and had urged his followers to take ac-tion against Western influences. President Carter undertook two scrubbed rescue

missions, one of which resulted in a humiliating accident for the US military and for the Carter Administration. Carter’s failure to secure the release of the hostages prior to the end of the �980 campaign season is often credited with his sizable electoral defeat. Ultimately, Iraq’s invasion of Iran in �980 made Iran more amenable to ending the crisis. Through the use of Algerian intermediaries, negotiations were finally successful. In a final slap to Carter, the hostages were formally relinquished to US custody on January 2�, �98�, minutes after Reagan’s inauguration.

THE IRON LADY — (�979 – �990) In many ways presaging the “Reagan revolution” in the United States, Margaret Thatcher led a rejuvenation of the conservative movement in the United King-dom. An ardent anti-communist, Thatcher received the moniker “Iron Lady” from the Soviet newspaper, “The Red Star.” Thatcher provided the perfect partner for Ronald Reagan, and together, they renewed the “special relationship” that formed the lynchpin of the post-war Atlantic Alliance. Thatcher’s finest moment may have been her vigorous defense of Britain’s colonial outpost in the Falkland Islands. The military junta ruling Argentina launched an invasion of what they referred to as the Malvinas Islands. In a sharp, short military action, the UK expelled the Argentinian forces, and restored some small luster to Britain’s former imperial pretensions. Thatcher reigned through the close of the Cold War, and is Britain’s longest serving prime minister.

REAGAN BOMBS LIBYA — (�986) After the fall of Nasser, a petro-dollar empowered strongman, Muamar Qaddafi, sought Libya’s day in the sun as leader of the Arab world. To prove his bona-fides Qaddafi became the leading source for state supported terrorism against the west. As Iran provided a new model for anti-western resistance, Qaddafi took on an increasingly religious piety in his defamations of the West. Following earlier show-downs involving the Gulf of Sidra, the United States took swift retribution for Libya’s apparent involvement in a West German discotheque bombing that killed an American serviceman. Targeting was heavily focused on killing Qadaffi, and his personal residences were targeted. While he escaped death, Qadaffi’s international prestige was much tarnished.

STAR WARS — (�983 – ?) More properly known as the Strategic Defense Initiative, President Reagan announced this radical depar-ture from the Cold War doctrine of “mutually assured destruction” in a live television speech to the American public. The initial concept for the “space shield” was developed at Lawrence Livermore Na-tional Laboratory by Dr. Peter Hagelstein. Notionally, it would create a series of space based satellites powered by nuclear reactors that would create an impenetrable field to block Soviet ICBM’s. While scientifically sound on paper, the concept was never successfully engineered. Later iterations involved “smart pebbles” and missile based interceptors. SDI is frequently credited as one of the factors

Page 29: RULE BOOK - WordPress.com · 2016. 10. 24. · and brown lines on the map. Brown lines represent connections within a region. Red dashed lines represent connections between countries

Twilight Struggle —2nd Edition— 29

© 2007 GMT Games, LLC

that convinced Gorbachev that the Soviet Union could not keep up the Cold War.

NORTH SEA OIL — (1980) While the first oil discoveries in the North Sea occurred in the �960’s, it would take the Iranian oil cri-sis to make the exploitation of North Sea oil economically viable. The North Sea contains the majority of Europe’s oil reserves and has become one of the leading non-OPEC producing regions in the world. Shared between the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Norway, the North Sea fields provided a welcome release from the death grip in which OPEC had hitherto held Western Europe.

THE REFORMER — (�985 — �99�) Successor to the short-lived premier-ship of Konstantin Chernenko, Mikhail Gorbachev was the only Soviet leader to be born after the Russian Revolution of �9�7. His experience within the Politburo gave him broad exposure to the West which profoundly affected his thinking about the USSR’s future. “Gorby,” as he would be known in the West, inspired a sort of fan following. Margaret Thatcher famously remarked on his coming to power “I like Mr. Gorbachev—we can

do business together.” Ultimately, Gorbachev would oversee the dismantling of the Soviet bloc. While his reformist agenda, includ-ing Perestroika (economic reform) and Glasnost (political freedom) made him extremely popular in the West, it made him less so in the Soviet Union. Ultimately, Gorbachev would be removed from office as the result of a reactionary military coup in �99�. In the wake of its failure, the Russian Federation would turn to a newly minted hero, Boris Yeltsin.

MARINE BARRACKS BOMBING — (�983) After the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, the United States and France dispatched troops to form a peace keeping force between the opposing sides. Terror-ist attacks on the troop barracks of both nations resulted in terrible losses. 24� US servicemen and 58 French paratroopers were killed in the attacks. It was the worst single day of casualties suffered by the US Marine Corps since Iwo Jima. While US suspicions have focused on Iranian sponsored Hezbollah terrorists, precise respon-sibility remains unknown.

SOVIETS SHOOT DOWN KAL-007 — (�983) Flying from New York City, to Seoul, South Korea, the doomed Korean Airlines Flight 007 strayed into Soviet Airspace due to a navigational error involving the plane’s autopilot system. While the Soviets contemporaneously claimed that they did not know that plane was civilian, tape releases after the Cold War indicate that little if any warning was given to the airliner. The Reagan administration rallied global reaction against the Soviets—even playing decoded messages before the UN Security Council. 269 passengers and crew were killed during the attack, including one member of Congress.

GLASNOST — (�985 – �989) The Russian word for openness, Glasnost was introduced as a public policy by Mikhail Gorbachev. While his long term aim may have been to improve the freedoms of the Russian people, his more immediate goal was to increase pressure on conservative apparatchiks to accept his “perestroika” economic reforms. While the US typically equated Glasnost with freedom of speech, in fact it was an attempt to bring transparency to the workings of the Politburo.

ORTEGA ELECTED IN NICARAGUA — (�985 – �990) A political dissident since age �6, Daniel Ortega Saavedra spent time in a Managua prison. Upon his release, he fled to Cuba and established relationships which would be vital for the Sandinista movement. When the Sandinistas ousted the Somoza regime, Ortega maneuvered himself into the de facto presidency. Ortega’s close ties to the Castro regime in turn prompted US support for the Contra rebels. Operating out of Northern Nicaragua and drawing support from agricultural interests that had been collectivized, the Contras were to prove a major hurdle to the success of Sandinista gover-nance. Ultimately, economic stagnation would prove the undoing of Ortega’s government.

TERRORISM — (�949 – ?) While a threat as old as human civilization, the use of terrorism as an instrument to change international policy ebbed and flowed throughout the Cold War. The Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies were known to train terrorist organizations within their borders, including radical elements of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). In many ways, the PLO provided the archetype for a terrorist organization throughout the Cold War.

With its anti-Western, anti-Israel ideology, it became a cause celebre for those asserting that the West was on a neo-imperialist crusade in the third world. Palestinian terrorists hijacked planes, attacked the Achille Lauro, and perhaps most infamously murdered �� Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in �972. There were also western based, communist affiliated terrorists such as the Red Brigades in Italy, and the Red Army in Japan. As the Cold War came to a close, and the Soviet Union faced increasing difficulty with Muslim fun-damentalism, its support for terrorism waned.

IRAN-CONTRA SCANDAL — (�985) In an effort to secure the release of US hostages in Lebanon, the Reagan un-dertook secret negotiations with Iran in-volving “arms for hostages.” This was in violation of the stated US policy of never negotiating with terrorists. Compound-ing this difficulty was the fact that the proceeds from weapons sales to Iran were used to covertly fund the Contra guerillas in Nicaragua. This was in contravention of stated Administration policy, as well as

laws adopted by the Democrat-controlled Congress. Colonel Oliver North and Admiral John Poindexter both were criminally indicted for the scandal, though the Congressional report concluded that President Reagan bore ultimate responsibility for the scandal.

CHERNOBYL — (�986) The Chernobyl accident was the worst disaster in the history of nuclear power. Radioactive debris spread in a massive cloud that stretched throughout Western Europe, and ultimately reached the eastern seaboard of the United States. 200,000 had to be relocated from badly contaminated regions of Soviet controlled Ukraine and Belarus. It is estimated that as many as 4,000 people may die from the deadly exposure they received that day. Chernobyl displayed the kind of staggering incompetence that came to reflect Soviet bureaucratic decision-making towards the close of the Cold War.

Page 30: RULE BOOK - WordPress.com · 2016. 10. 24. · and brown lines on the map. Brown lines represent connections within a region. Red dashed lines represent connections between countries

Twilight Struggle —2nd Edition—30

© 2007 GMT Games, LLC

LATIN AMERICAN DEBT CRISIS — (�982 – �989) A ripple effect from the rise of Middle Eastern oil, Latin American govern-ments experienced phenomenal growth from the �950’s into the �970’s. However, this came to an abrupt halt. Unfortunately, even with impressive economic growth, Latin American countries like Brazil and Ecuador continued to rack up external debt. Given the new found global capital from petrodollars, Latin American govern-ments found willing lenders. External debt in Latin America rose �,000% from �970 to �980. When a global recession sparked by the Iranian oil crisis buffeted world economies, most Latin American governments simply could not keep up. Eventually, these govern-ments would have to commit to significant restructuring of their economies to reduce their debt.

“TEAR DOWN THIS WALL” — (�987) In a speech that hearkened back to Kennedy’s address in front of the Berlin wall, Ronald Reagan challenged newly installed Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Reagan, with the Brandenburg gate in the background, declared: “General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” While provocative, the speech leveled a difficult criticism at the Soviet Union. Successful countries do not have to wall their citizens in. Two short years later, the Berlin Wall would come down.

“AN EVIL EMPIRE” — (�983) First used by President Ronald Reagan before the National Association of Evangelicals, conserva-tives applied the term “evil empire” to the Soviet Union. This change in terminology encapsulated the conservative movement’s rejection of Nixon’s morally ambiguous policy of detente. The speech sparked controversy within the NATO alliance, as many European leaders found the speech unnecessarily provocative. Domestically, the left argued that the United States had no room to criticize Soviet actions during the Cold War, and pointed to CIA involvement in places like Chile. The speech gave further indication that the last phase of the Cold War would be a confrontational one.

ALDRICH AMES — (1985 – 1994) The first known successful penetration of the CIA by the KGB, Aldrich Ames compromised hundreds of CIA operations and provided information that resulted in the execution of �0 US sources. The CIA spent years looking for another explanation for the leaks—in particular the possibility that the KGB had bugged CIA headquarters. Ames’ motivation was not ideological, and he and his wife enjoyed the extravagance that his $2.5 million in bribes provided. Ames first walked into the Soviet embassy in �995. At that time, he oversaw the analysis of Soviet intelligence operations in Europe.

PERSHING II DEPLOYED — (�984 – �985) The Pershing II missile was designed as a direct counter to the Soviet Intermediate Range Missile, the SS-20. The deployment of �08 of these missiles in West Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom proved a major test for NATO’s resolve. Public protests against the deployments were massive. However, despite the strains, the weapons were deployed, providing NATO with a bargaining chip in the proposed Intermediate range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty discussions. These negotiations had been suspended in �983, and the successful deployment of the Pershing II’s provided impetus for restarting the talks in �985. Ultimately, the talks would succeed at the Reykjavik summit in Iceland in �986.

WARGAMES — (�956 – �995) Brinksmanship was a term coined by John Foster Dulles to describe a policy of coming close to war, without falling into the abyss. At different times, during different crises, this policy was pursued by both superpowers. However, there was always the danger that brinksmanship could turn the “cold” war, hot. Additionally, brinksmanship encouraged a nuclear posture of “launch on warning.” Game theory demanded that if your op-ponent were launching a massive nuclear strike, you would have to launch your own weapons before they could be destroyed in their silos. These doctrines shortened reaction times of world leaders from hours to minutes. On November 9th, �979, the United States made preparations for a retaliatory nuclear strike when a NORAD computer glitch indicated an all-out Soviet strike had been launched. As recently as 1995, Russia mistook a Norwegian scientific missile launch for an attack, and Boris Yeltsin was asked to decide whether or not to counterattack.

FORMOSAN RESOLUTION — (�955) Reacting to the “loss of China” the United States Congress extended to President Eisenhower open ended authority to defend Taiwan—technically known as the Republic of China on Taiwan—with military force. The resolution came at a time when the United States faced challenges from the People’s Republic in Indochina as well as the Korean peninsula. Ef-fectively, Taiwan sat under the US nuclear umbrella, and the balance of power within the Taiwan Straits would now remain a question of strategic importance to the United States.

IRAN-IRAQ WAR — (�980 – �988) Commenting on the war, Henry Kissinger famously remarked, “Too bad they can’t both lose.” Sparked by simmering land disputes over the Shatt al-Arab, Saddam Hussein sought to establish Iraq as a true regional power, and also check the export of Shia fundamentalism from Iran. Initially, Iraq scored limited gains, but Iranian forces rallied and began a counter offensive into Iraq. Without set allies in the conflict, the United States played a cynical game of attempting to keep both

sides sufficiently supplied for the war to continue. Ultimately, the US began to tilt to Iraq as an Iranian victory in the war would have been an unacceptable outcome. Iran also utilized oil as a weapon necessitating the US flagging of Kuwaiti tankers to ensure oil sup-plies. After 8 years of war, the border returned to its ante bellum status. However, both nations had been severely weakened by the conflict.

DEFECTORS — (�945 – �989) Preceeding the start of the Cold War, citizens of the Eastern bloc, fled or defected to the West. De-fectors came in two primary archetypes. Spies and Double agents who had been discovered or needed to “come in from the cold” would frequently flee to their masters and allude capture. Examples of this type of defector include KGB Deputy Chief Yuri Nosenko and KGB London Bureau Chief Oleg Gordievsky. Perhaps more embarassingly, and certainly more publicly, many talentend Soviet artists defected while on tour in the United States or Europe. While the West also suffered occasional defections, particularly from west-erners involved in espionage, it never reached the same proportion or the same level of public spectacle.

Page 31: RULE BOOK - WordPress.com · 2016. 10. 24. · and brown lines on the map. Brown lines represent connections within a region. Red dashed lines represent connections between countries

Twilight Struggle —2nd Edition— 3�

© 2007 GMT Games, LLC

Designer’s Notes The Long Twilight StruggleLike most freshman game designers, we spent many years putting this game together. Twilight Struggle, more than anything else, is a game designed to meet our needs. We are both huge fans of the card driven wargame, and how it has breathed new life into wargaming in general. Like a modern day Lazarus, card driven wargames have brought our hobby back from the grave. Yet even five years ago, when Ananda and I first decided we wanted to try our hand at design, the writing was on the wall. Card driven games were going to become less and less like We The People, and Hannibal, and more and more like Paths of Glory and Barbarossa to Berlin. That is not a critique of Mr. Raicer’s work. In fact, we think that it took Paths of Glory to demonstrate just how rich a card driven game might be. But it conflicted with another reality. We were getting older. Our lives were less like the gaming rich days of college, and more like the work-a-day world of the “nuclear” family. Eight hours for a single game was becoming less and less likely. So selfishly, we designed a game to fit our schedules. You can play Twilight Struggle from beginning to end in the same time it takes to play the “short” scenario of many other games. Heck, you can switch sides and play the Cold War from both angles if you are really ambitious. That is a long way of saying the number one constraint on the design was time.

The second question that we had to answer was the subject area. I believe that civil wars are the perfect subject for the influence system. So initially, I convinced Ananda to try a Spanish Civil War design. A couple of books on the subject quickly convinced us that it would takes years to master the politics of that war, and frankly, we weren’t going to wait years to start. So Ananda, in a stroke of genius, suggested the Cold War as a replacement. It was a great topic. There are very few games that deal with the politi-cal aspects of the Cold War in a serious way—there were not that many of them even when we were fighting the Cold War. The basic influence system translated well. The history was a non issue, for as an International Relations major in the �980’s, I basically spent four years studying the Cold War. Finally, one of the best gam-ing experiences that I ever had was Chris Crawford’s Balance of Power. It was a game about Cold War politics, and even more so, about the brinksmanship of a crisis between the superpowers. To this day, computer gamers look back on its innovation. I’ll never forget the game’s immortal line when you brought the world to nuclear destruction over something ridiculous like funding gueril-las in Kenya.

You have ignited a nuclear war. And no, there is no animated display or a mushroom cloud with parts of bodies flying through the air. We do not reward failure.

Had I failed my senior year of high school, it really would have been Chris Crawford’s fault. So, Ananda’s golden idea provided us the chance to try and recreate some of the magic of that game.

We use the term “game” advisedly. Twilight Struggle does not reach beyond its means. Wherever there were compromises to make between realism and playability, we sided with playability. We want to evoke the feel of the Cold War, we hope people get a few insights they didn’t possess, but we have no pretensions that a game of this scope or length could pretend to be a simulation.

Also important for players to understand is that the game has a

very definite point of view. Twilight Struggle basically accepts all of the internal logic of the Cold War as true—even those parts of it that are demonstrably false. Therefore, the only relationships that matter in this game are those between a nation and the superpowers. The world provides a convenient chess board for US and Soviet ambitions, but all other nations are mere pawns (with perhaps the occasional bishop) in that game. Even China is abstracted down to a card that is passed between the two countries. Furthermore, not only does the domino theory work, it is a prerequisite for extend-ing influence into a region. Historians would rightly dispute all of these assumptions, but in keeping with the design philosophy, we think they make a better game.

One very notable difference between Twilight Struggle and other Cold War games is that we assume nuclear war would be a bad thing. Many other designs make the whole idea of letting the nuclear genie out the bottle irresistible. From our vantage point of hindsight, nuclear war was unthinkable, and that is why it did not happen. Yes, we came close, but we believe that rational actors would veer away from the button. Once the button was pushed, nuclear war would have taken on a grim logic of its own, and hu-man extinction might have been the result.

There were many decisions made for playability, but we will touch upon two. First, not all countries that are geographically adjacent are connected to one another. There are three reasons for this. For instance, many countries are amalgamations, so that messes with geography from the get go. Secondly, and most importantly, we wanted there to be a real impact to the domino theory, with play-ers spreading their influence slowly across the map. Think of the old documentaries with red animated arrows streaming from the Soviet Union in all directions. Finally, and most rarely, the lack of a connection between countries reflects the local antagonisms between two presumed allies.

The second decision that warrants a bit more elaboration is what nations were labeled “battleground state.” Basically, there were three ways to attain this status. First, recognized regional pow-ers got it. The South American battlegrounds reflect this well. Secondly, if a nation possessed important strategic resources, that also meant battleground status. Obviously, most battlegrounds in the Middle East, as well as Angola and Venezuela, would qualify here. Finally, if a nation was an actual battleground between the superpowers, like South Korea, it received battleground status. So, for our English and Australian cousins, please know that we are not ranking you behind our French allies. Instead, you are anchors of US influence in Europe and Asia at the start of the game.

There are many aspects of the game about which we are proud, but the most amusing is how the game can capture the psychology of the Cold War. Areas become important just because your opponent thinks they are important—he must be going there for some reason! Also, we are proud of the interaction of the DEFCON chart with military operations. It really compels each turn to have a diversity of actions that makes for a more tense and exciting game.

At the end of the day, Twilight Struggle represents a bit of Cold War nostalgia. In a world of stateless enemies, for whom our destruction is an end in itself, the Cold War seems a quaint disagreement about economics. As religious chauvinism shoves aside ideology, we yearn for a simpler time absent of invisible menaces, fighting for cherished principle against an enemy that we understood. So let us once more pound our shoes, grab the hotline, and stand watch in Berlin. The Cold War is over, but the game has just begun.

Page 32: RULE BOOK - WordPress.com · 2016. 10. 24. · and brown lines on the map. Brown lines represent connections within a region. Red dashed lines represent connections between countries

Twilight Struggle —2nd Edition—32

© 2007 GMT Games, LLC

GMT Games, LLC • P.O. Box �308, Hanford, CA 93232-�308www.GMTGames.com